ABSTRACT
Private sector engagement in health reform has been suggested to help reduce healthcare inequities in sub-Saharan Africa, where populations with the most need seek the least care. We study the effects of African Health Markets for Equity (AHME), a cluster randomized controlled trial carried out in Kenya from 2012 to 2020 at 199 private health clinics. AHME included four clinic-level interventions: social health insurance, social franchising, SafeCare quality-of-care certification programme and business support. This paper evaluates whether AHME increased the capacity of private health clinics to serve poor clients while maintaining or enhancing the quality of care provided. At endline, clinics that received AHME were 14.5 percentage points (pp) more likely to be empanelled with the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), served 51% more NHIF clients and served more clients from the middle three quintiles of the wealth distribution compared to control clinics. Comparing individuals living in households near AHME treatment and control clinics (N = 8241), AHME led to a 6.7-pp increase in the probability of holding any health insurance on average. We did not find any additional effect of AHME on insurance holding among poor households. We measured quality of care using a standardized patient (SP) experiment (N = 596 SP-provider interactions) where recruited and trained SPs were randomized to present as either 'not poor', and able to afford all services provided, or 'poor' by telling the provider they could only afford â¼300 Kenyan Shillings (US$3) in fees. We found that poor SPs received lower levels of both correct and unnecessary services, and AHME did not affect this. More work must be done to ensure that clients of all wealth levels receive high-quality care.
Subject(s)
Health Care Reform , Private Sector , Humans , Kenya , Health Services Accessibility , Health FacilitiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Voluntary Counseling and Testing for HIV (VCT) and increasing access to male condoms are common strategies to respond to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Using biological and behavioral outcomes, we compared programs to increase access to VCT, male condoms or both among youth in Western Kenya with the standard available HIV prevention services within this setting. DESIGN: A four arm, unblinded randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The sample includes 10,245 youth aged 17 to 24 randomly assigned to receive community-based VCT, 150 male condoms, both VCT and condoms, or neither program. All had access to standard HIV services available within their communities. Surveys and blood samples for HSV-2 testing were collected at baseline (2009-2010) and at follow up (2011-2013). VCT was offered to all participants at follow up. HSV-2 prevalence, the primary outcome, was assessed using weighted logistic regressions in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: For the 7,565 respondents surveyed at follow up, (effective tracking rate = 91%), the weighted HSV-2 prevalence was similar across groups (control group = 10.8%, condoms only group = 9.1%, VCT only group = 10.2%, VCT and condoms group = 11.5%). None of the interventions significantly reduced HSV-2 prevalence; the adjusted odds ratios were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.61-1.25) for condoms only, 0.94 (95% CI: 0.64-1.38) for VCT only, and 1.12 (95% CI: 0.79-1.58) for both interventions. The VCT intervention significantly increased HIV testing (adj OR: 3.54, 95% CI: 2.32-5.41 for VCT only, and adj OR: 5.52, 95% CI: 3.90-7.81 for condoms and VCT group). There were no statistically significant effects on risk of HIV, or on other behavioral or knowledge outcomes including self-reported pregnancy rates. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that systematic community-based VCT campaigns (in addition to VCT availability at local health clinics) and condom distribution are unlikely on their own to significantly reduce the prevalence of HSV-2 among youth.