Universal health coverage and the poor: to what extent are health financing policies making a difference? Evidence from a benefit incidence analysis in Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Zambia has invested in several healthcare financing reforms aimed at achieving universal access to health services. Several evaluations have investigated the effects of these reforms on the utilization of health services. However, only one study has assessed the distributional incidence of health spending across different socioeconomic groups, but without differentiating between public and overall health spending and between curative and maternal health services. Our study aims to fill this gap by undertaking a quasi-longitudinal benefit incidence analysis of public and overall health spending between 2006 and 2014. METHODS: We conducted a Benefit Incidence Analysis (BIA) to measure the socioeconomic inequality of public and overall health spending on curative services and institutional delivery across different health facility typologies at three time points. We combined data from household surveys and National Health Accounts. RESULTS: Results showed that public (concentration index of - 0.003; SE 0.027 in 2006 and - 0.207; SE 0.011 in 2014) and overall (0.050; SE 0.033 in 2006 and - 0.169; SE 0.011 in 2014) health spending on curative services tended to benefit the poorer segments of the population while public (0.241; SE 0.018 in 2007 and 0.120; SE 0.007 in 2014) and overall health spending (0.051; SE 0.022 in 2007 and 0.116; SE 0.007 in 2014) on institutional delivery tended to benefit the least-poor. Higher inequalities were observed at higher care levels for both curative and institutional delivery services. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the implementation of UHC policies in Zambia led to a reduction in socioeconomic inequality in health spending, particularly at health centres and for curative care. Further action is needed to address existing barriers for the poor to benefit from health spending on curative services and at higher levels of care.

Myriad of Health Care Financing Reforms in Zambia: Have the Poor Benefited?

Zambia has implemented a number of financing and organizational reforms since the 1990s aimed at increasing efficiency, enhancing equity, and improving health outcomes. This study reviews the distributional impact of these health reforms on enhancing equity at the regional level and for different socioeconomic groups. Data from three nationally representative household surveys were collected, and a benefit incidence analysis was conducted to determine the distributional impact over the period 2010-2015. The results show that distribution of subsidies and utilization of outpatient services at public health facilities in Zambia has consistently been in favor of urban provinces. Further, distribution of health subsidies across the ten provinces in Zambia does not correspond to reported illnesses in each province. The study also shows that utilization of outpatient services at public (hospitals and health centers) and private health facilities is generally in favor of the rich, and utilization of both inpatient and outpatient services at public and private health facilities benefits the rich more than the poor. And although the results show a pro-poor redistribution of benefits across income groups in 2015 compared to 2010 whereby the poorest two income groups received more than a 20% share of benefits in each quintile, the benefits were still lower than their health needs. This is contrary to the richest two income groups whose share of benefits was higher than their health needs in both 2010 and 2015. The study concludes that Zambia has not yet fully attained its long-term health reform vision of "equity of access to quality health care" despite years of successive health reforms. The study calls for the Zambian government to complement strategies on financial risk protection with deliberate supply- and demand-side actions in order to enhance equity. Improvements in long- and short-term planning and regular monitoring and evaluation are critical.

Multi-country analysis of treatment costs for HIV/AIDS (MATCH): facility-level ART unit cost analysis in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Today's uncertain HIV funding landscape threatens to slow progress towards treatment goals. Understanding the costs of antiretroviral therapy (ART) will be essential for governments to make informed policy decisions about the pace of scale-up under the 2013 WHO HIV Treatment Guidelines, which increase the number of people eligible for treatment from 17.6 million to 28.6 million. The study presented here is one of the largest of its kind and the first to describe the facility-level cost of ART in a random sample of facilities in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Zambia. METHODS & FINDINGS: In 2010-2011, comprehensive data on one year of facility-level ART costs and patient outcomes were collected from 161 facilities, selected using stratified random sampling. Overall, facility-level ART costs were significantly lower than expected in four of the five countries, with a simple average of $208 per patient-year (ppy) across Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia. Costs were higher in South Africa, at $682 ppy. This included medications, laboratory services, direct and indirect personnel, patient support, equipment and administrative services. Facilities demonstrated the ability to retain patients alive and on treatment at these costs, although outcomes for established patients (2-8% annual loss to follow-up or death) were better than outcomes for new patients in their first year of ART (77-95% alive and on treatment). CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrated that the facility-level costs of ART are lower than previously understood in these five countries. While limitations must be considered, and costs will vary across countries, this suggests that expanded treatment coverage may be affordable. Further research is needed to understand investment costs of treatment scale-up, non-facility costs and opportunities for more efficient resource allocation.