RESUMEN
Rising global migration levels have led to growing diaspora populations. There has been interest in the role of diaspora healthcare professionals (HCPs) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in development aid to their origin countries, although there has been comparatively less focus on their educational activities. This study examined the stated educational priorities of LMIC medical diaspora organisations, with a particular focus on the tension between promoting professional opportunities afforded by medical migration and contributing to healthcare workforce shortages due to migration away from LMICs.We gathered a textual archive from webpages and public documents of 89 LMIC medical diaspora organisations in high income countries, predominantly the US and UK. We employed Foucauldian critical discourse analysis to examine presented rationales around educational policies and practices, with a focus on encouragement towards, and discouragement from, medical migration. Two discourses dominated this archive. The first was of preservation and framed the educational work of these organisations as a means of providing unity and social networks to diaspora HCPs, with a focus on maintaining their cultural identity and heritage, and medical connections with their origin countries. The second was of aspiration and framed their educational work as providing support to diaspora HCPs to advance their careers and maximise training opportunities, often through directly enabling and supporting migration to high income countries. There was a discursive absence around brain drain with no policies or practices that overtly sought to deter against, or offset the negative effects of, medical migration. Notwithstanding the valuable contributions that LMIC medical diaspora organisations make in global health, the discursive framings that shape their educational work are linked primarily to protecting and progressing diaspora HCPs rather than on LMIC workforce challenges. Further research is needed to examine potential impacts of these positions on HCP migratory behaviours.
RESUMEN
Incentive-linked prescribing (ILP) is considered a controversial practice universally. If incentivised, physicians may prioritise meeting pharmaceutical sales targets through prescriptions, rather than considering patients' health and wellbeing. Despite the potential harms of ILP to patients and important stakeholders in the healthcare system, healthcare consumers (HCCs) which include patients and the general public often have far less awareness about the practice of pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. We conducted a scoping review to explore what existing research says about HCCs' perceptions of the financial relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. To conduct this scoping review, we followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting eligible studies, data charting, and collating, summarising, and reporting results. We also used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), as a guide to organise the information in this review. Quantitative and qualitative studies with patients and the general public, published in the English language were identified through searches of Scopus, Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and Google Scholar. Three themes emerged through the analysis of the 13 eligible studies: understanding of incentivisation, perceptions of hazards linked to ILP, and HCCs' suggestions to address it. We found documentation that HCCs exhibited a range of knowledge from good to insufficient about the pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. HCCs perceived several hazards linked to ILP such as a lack of trust in physicians and the healthcare system, the prescribing of unnecessary medications, and the negative effect on physicians' reputations in society. In addition to strong regulatory controls, it is critical that physicians self-regulate their behaviour, and publicly disclose if they have any financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Doing so can contribute to trust between patients and physicians, an important part of patient-focused care and a contributor to user confidence in the wider health system.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was a health emergency requiring rapid fiscal resource mobilisation to support national responses. The use of effective health financing mechanisms and policies, or lack thereof, affected the impact of the pandemic on the population, particularly vulnerable groups and individuals. We provide an overview and illustrative examples of health financing policies adopted in 15 countries during the pandemic, develop a framework for resilient health financing, and use this pandemic to argue a case to move towards universal health coverage (UHC). METHODS: In this case study, we examined the national health financing policy responses of 15 countries, which were purposefully selected countries to represent all WHO regions and have a range of income levels, UHC index scores, and health system typologies. We did a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed articles, policy documents, technical reports, and publicly available data on policy measures undertaken in response to the pandemic and complemented the data obtained with 61 in-depth interviews with health systems and health financing experts. We did a thematic analysis of our data and organised key themes into a conceptual framework for resilient health financing. FINDINGS: Resilient health financing for health emergencies is characterised by two main phases: (1) absorb and recover, where health systems are required to absorb the initial and subsequent shocks brought about by the pandemic and restabilise from them; and (2) sustain, where health systems need to expand and maintain fiscal space for health to move towards UHC while building on resilient health financing structures that can better prepare health systems for future health emergencies. We observed that five key financing policies were implemented across the countries-namely, use of extra-budgetary funds for a swift initial response, repurposing of existing funds, efficient fund disbursement mechanisms to ensure rapid channelisation to the intended personnel and general population, mobilisation of the private sector to mitigate the gaps in public settings, and expansion of service coverage to enhance the protection of vulnerable groups. Accountability and monitoring are needed at every stage to ensure efficient and accountable movement and use of funds, which can be achieved through strong governance and coordination, information technology, and community engagement. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that health systems need to leverage the COVID-19 pandemic as a window of opportunity to make health financing policies robust and need to politically commit to public financing mechanisms that work to prepare for future emergencies and as a lever for UHC. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.