Designing an evidence-informed package of essential health services for Universal Health Coverage: lessons learnt and challenges to implementation in Liberia.

Liberia developed an evidence-informed package of health services for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 evidence. This paper describes the policy decisions, methods and processes adopted for prioritisation, key features of the package and lessons learnt, with special emphasis on feasibility of implementation. Package design was led by the Ministry of Health. Prioritisation of essential services was based on evidence on disease burden, cost-effectiveness, financial risk, equity, budget impact, and feasibility of implementation. Fiscal space analysis was used to assess package affordability and options for expanding the budget envelope. The final adopted package focuses on primary healthcare and comprises a core subpackage of 78 publicly financed interventions and a complementary subpackage of 50 interventions funded through cost-sharing. The estimated per capita cost to the government is US$12.28, averting around 1.2 million DALYs. Key lessons learnt are described: (1) priority setting is essential for designing affordable packages of essential services; (2) the most realistic and affordable option when domestic resources are critically limited is to focus on basic, high-impact primary health services; (3) Liberia and many other countries will continue to rely on donor funding to expand the range of essential services until more domestic resources become available; (4) national leadership and effective engagement of key stakeholders are critical for a successful package design; (5) effective implementation is less likely unless the package cost is affordable and the health system gaps are assessed and addressed. A framework of action was employed to assess the consistency with the prerequisites for an appropriate package design. Based on the framework, Liberia developed a transparent and affordable package for UHC, but the challenges to implementation require further action by the government.

Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of essential packages of health services.

Essential packages of health services (EPHS) are a critical tool for achieving universal health coverage, especially in low-income and lower middle-income countries. However, there is a lack of guidance and standards for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of EPHS implementation. This paper is the final in a series of papers reviewing experiences using evidence from the Disease Control Priorities, third edition publications in EPHS reforms in seven countries. We assess current approaches to EPHS M&E, including case studies of M&E approaches in Ethiopia and Pakistan. We propose a step-by-step process for developing a national EPHS M&E framework. Such a framework would start with a theory of change that links to the specific health system reforms the EPHS is trying to accomplish, including explicit statements about the 'what' and 'for whom' of M&E efforts. Monitoring frameworks need to consider the additional demands that could be placed on weak and already overstretched data systems, and they must ensure that processes are put in place to act quickly on emergent implementation challenges. Evaluation frameworks could learn from the field of implementation science; for example, by adapting the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to policy implementation. While each country will need to develop its own locally relevant M&E indicators, we encourage all countries to include a set of core indicators that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal 3 targets and indicators. Our paper concludes with a call to reprioritise M&E more generally and to use the EPHS process as an opportunity for strengthening national health information systems. We call for an international learning network on EPHS M&E to generate new evidence and exchange best practices.

Using costing to facilitate policy making towards Universal Health Coverage: findings and recommendations from country-level experiences.

As countries progress towards universal health coverage (UHC), they frequently develop explicit packages of health services compatible with UHC goals. As part of the Disease Control Initiative 3 Country Translation project, a systematic survey instrument was developed and used to review the experience of five low-income and lower-middle-income countries-Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan-in estimating the cost of their proposed packages. The paper highlights the main results of the survey, providing information about how costing exercises were conducted and used and what country teams perceived to be the main challenges. Key messages are identified to facilitate similar exercises and improve their usefulness. Critical challenges to be addressed include inconsistent application of costing methods, measurement errors and data reliability issues, the lack of adequate capacity building, and the lack of integration between costing and budgeting. The paper formulates four recommendations to address these challenges: (1) developing more systematic guidance and standard ways to implement costing methodologies, particularly regarding the treatment of health systems-related common costs, (2) acknowledging ranges of uncertainty of costing results and integrating sensitivity analysis, (3) building long-term capacity at the local level and institutionalising the costing process in order to improve both reliability and policy relevance, and (4) closely linking costing exercises to public budgeting.

Country readiness and prerequisites for successful design and transition to implementation of essential packages of health services: experience from six countries.

This paper reviews the experience of six low-income and lower middle-income countries in setting their own essential packages of health services (EPHS), with the purpose of identifying the key requirements for the successful design and transition to implementation of the packages in the context of accelerating progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). The analysis is based on input from three meetings of a knowledge network established by the Disease Control Priorities 3 Country Translation Project and working groups, supplemented by a survey of participating countries.All countries endorsed the Sustainable Development Goals target 3.8 on UHC for achievement by 2030. The assessment of country experiences found that health system strengthening and mobilising and sustaining health financing are major challenges. EPHS implementation is more likely when health system gaps are addressed and when there are realistic and sustainable financing prospects. However, health system assessments were inadequate and the government planning and finance sectors were not consistently engaged in setting the EPHS in most of the countries studied. There was also a need for greater engagement with community and civil society representatives, academia and the private sector in package design. Leadership and reinforcement of technical and managerial capacity are critical in the transition from EPHS design to sustained implementation, as are strong human resources and country ownership of the process. Political commitment beyond the health sector is key, particularly commitment from parliamentarians and policymakers in the planning and finance sectors. National ownership, institutionalisation of technical and managerial capacity and reinforcing human resources are critical for success.The review concludes that four prerequisites are crucial for a successful EPHS: (1) sustained high-level commitment, (2) sustainable financing, (3) health system readiness, and (4) institutionalisation.

The role of the private sector in delivering essential packages of health services: lessons from country experiences.

Many countries are adopting essential packages of health services (EPHS) to implement universal health coverage (UHC), which are mostly financed and delivered by the public sector, while the potential role of the private health sector (PHS) remains untapped. Currently, many low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) have devised EPHS; however, guidance on translating these packages into quality, accessible and affordable services is limited. This paper explores the role of PHS in achieving UHC, identifies key concerns and presents the experience of the Diseases Control Priorities 3 Country Translation project in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar. There are key challenges to engagement of the PHS, which include the complexity and heterogeneity of private providers, their operation in isolation of the health system, limitations of population coverage and equity when left to PHS's own choices, and higher overall cost of care for privately delivered services. Irrespective of the strategies employed to involve the PHS in delivering EPHS, it is necessary to identify private providers in terms of their characteristics and contribution, and their response to regulatory tools and incentives. Strategies for regulating private providers include better statutory control to prevent unlicensed practice, self-regulation by professional bodies to maintain standards of practice and accreditation of large private hospitals and chains. Potentially, purchasing delivery of essential services by engaging private providers can be an effective 'regulatory approach' to modify provider behaviour. Despite existing experience, more research is needed to better explore and operationalise the role of PHS in implementing EPHS in LLMICs.

Protecting essential health services in low-income and middle-income countries and humanitarian settings while responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In health outcomes terms, the poorest countries stand to lose the most from these disruptions. In this paper, we make the case for a rational approach to public sector health spending and decision making during and in the early recovery phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on ethics and equity principles, it is crucial to ensure that patients not infected by COVID-19 continue to get access to healthcare and that the services they need continue to be resourced. We present a list of 120 essential non-COVID-19 health interventions that were adapted from the model health benefit packages developed by the Disease Control Priorities project.

Global Health in the Age of COVID-19: Responsive Health Systems Through a Right to Health Fund.

We propose that a Right to Health Capacity Fund (R2HCF) be created as a central institution of a reimagined global health architecture developed in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such a fund would help ensure the strong health systems required to prevent disease outbreaks from becoming devastating global pandemics, while ensuring genuinely universal health coverage that would encompass even the most marginalized populations. The R2HCF's mission would be to promote inclusive participation, equality, and accountability for advancing the right to health. The fund would focus its resources on civil society organizations, supporting their advocacy and strengthening mechanisms for accountability and participation. We propose an initial annual target of US$500 million for the fund, adjusted based on needs assessments. Such a financing level would be both achievable and transformative, given the limited right to health funding presently and the demonstrated potential of right to health initiatives to strengthen health systems and meet the health needs of marginalized populations-and enable these populations to be treated with dignity. We call for a civil society-led multi-stakeholder process to further conceptualize, and then launch, an R2HCF, helping create a world where, whether during a health emergency or in ordinary times, no one is left behind.

Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

The World Bank is publishing nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3) between 2015 and 2018. Volume 9, Improving Health and Reducing Poverty, summarises the main messages from all the volumes and contains cross-cutting analyses. This Review draws on all nine volumes to convey conclusions. The analysis in DCP3 is built around 21 essential packages that were developed in the nine volumes. Each essential package addresses the concerns of a major professional community (eg, child health or surgery) and contains a mix of intersectoral policies and health-sector interventions. 71 intersectoral prevention policies were identified in total, 29 of which are priorities for early introduction. Interventions within the health sector were grouped onto five platforms (population based, community level, health centre, first-level hospital, and referral hospital). DCP3 defines a model concept of essential universal health coverage (EUHC) with 218 interventions that provides a starting point for country-specific analysis of priorities. Assuming steady-state implementation by 2030, EUHC in lower-middle-income countries would reduce premature deaths by an estimated 4·2 million per year. Estimated total costs prove substantial: about 9·1% of (current) gross national income (GNI) in low-income countries and 5·2% of GNI in lower-middle-income countries. Financing provision of continuing intervention against chronic conditions accounts for about half of estimated incremental costs. For lower-middle-income countries, the mortality reduction from implementing the EUHC can only reach about half the mortality reduction in non-communicable diseases called for by the Sustainable Development Goals. Full achievement will require increased investment or sustained intersectoral action, and actions by finance ministries to tax smoking and polluting emissions and to reduce or eliminate (often large) subsidies on fossil fuels appear of central importance. DCP3 is intended to be a model starting point for analyses at the country level, but country-specific cost structures, epidemiological needs, and national priorities will generally lead to definitions of EUHC that differ from country to country and from the model in this Review. DCP3 is particularly relevant as achievement of EUHC relies increasingly on greater domestic finance, with global developmental assistance in health focusing more on global public goods. In addition to assessing effects on mortality, DCP3 looked at outcomes of EUHC not encompassed by the disability-adjusted life-year metric and related cost-effectiveness analyses. The other objectives included financial protection (potentially better provided upstream by keeping people out of the hospital rather than downstream by paying their hospital bills for them), stillbirths averted, palliative care, contraception, and child physical and intellectual growth. The first 1000 days after conception are highly important for child development, but the next 7000 days are likewise important and often neglected.

Total cardiovascular risk approach to improve efficiency of cardiovascular prevention in resource constrain settings.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the population distribution of cardiovascular risk in eight low- and middle-income countries and compare the cost of drug treatment based on cardiovascular risk (cardiovascular risk thresholds ≥ 30%/≥ 40%) with single risk factor cutoff levels. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Society of Hypertension risk prediction charts, cardiovascular risk was categorized in a cross-sectional study of 8,625 randomly selected people aged 40-80 years (mean age, 54.6 years) from defined geographic regions of Nigeria, Iran, China, Pakistan, Georgia, Nepal, Cuba, and Sri Lanka. Cost estimates for drug therapy were calculated for three countries. RESULTS: A large fraction (90.0-98.9%) of the study population has a 10-year cardiovascular risk <20%. Only 0.2-4.8% are in the high-risk categories (≥ 30%). Adopting a total risk approach and WHO guidelines recommendations would restrict unnecessary drug treatment and reduce the drug costs significantly. CONCLUSION: Adopting a total cardiovascular risk approach instead of a single risk factor approach reduces health care expenditure by reducing drug costs. Therefore, limited resources can be more efficiently used to target high-risk people who will benefit the most. This strategy needs to be complemented with population-wide measures to shift the cardiovascular risk distribution of the whole population.

Prevention and management of chronic disease: a litmus test for health-systems strengthening in low-income and middle-income countries.

National health systems need strengthening if they are to meet the growing challenge of chronic diseases in low-income and middle-income countries. By application of an accepted health-systems framework to the evidence, we report that the factors that limit countries' capacity to implement proven strategies for chronic diseases relate to the way in which health systems are designed and function. Substantial constraints are apparent across each of the six key health-systems components of health financing, governance, health workforce, health information, medical products and technologies, and health-service delivery. These constraints have become more evident as development partners have accelerated efforts to respond to HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and vaccine-preventable diseases. A new global agenda for health-systems strengthening is arising from the urgent need to scale up and sustain these priority interventions. Most chronic diseases are neglected in this dialogue about health systems, despite the fact that non-communicable diseases (most of which are chronic) will account for 69% of all global deaths by 2030 with 80% of these deaths in low-income and middle-income countries. At the same time, advocates for action against chronic diseases are not paying enough attention to health systems as part of an effective response. Efforts to scale up interventions for management of common chronic diseases in these countries tend to focus on one disease and its causes, and are often fragmented and vertical. Evidence is emerging that chronic disease interventions could contribute to strengthening the capacity of health systems to deliver a comprehensive range of services-provided that such investments are planned to include these broad objectives. Because effective chronic disease programmes are highly dependent on well-functioning national health systems, chronic diseases should be a litmus test for health-systems strengthening.