Examining multiple funding flows to public healthcare providers in low- and middle-income countries - results from case studies in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia and Vietnam.

Provider payment methods are traditionally examined by appraising the incentive signals inherent in individual payment mechanisms. However, mixed payment arrangements, which result in multiple funding flows from purchasers to providers, could be better understood by applying a systems approach that assesses the combined effects of multiple payment streams on healthcare providers. Guided by the framework developed by Barasa et al. (2021) (Barasa E, Mathauer I, Kabia E et al. 2021. How do healthcare providers respond to multiple funding flows? A conceptual framework and options to align them. Health Policy and Planning  36: 861-8.), this paper synthesizes the findings from six country case studies that examined multiple funding flows and describes the potential effect of multiple payment streams on healthcare provider behaviour in low- and middle-income countries. The qualitative findings from this study reveal the extent of undesirable provider behaviour occurring due to the receipt of multiple funding flows and explain how certain characteristics of funding flows can drive the occurrence of undesirable behaviours. Service and resource shifting occurred in most of the study countries; however, the occurrence of cost shifting was less evident. The perceived adequacy of payment rates was found to be the strongest driver of provider behaviour in the countries examined. The study results indicate that undesirable provider behaviours can have negative impacts on efficiency, equity and quality in healthcare service provision. Further empirical studies are required to add to the evidence on this link. In addition, future research could explore how governance arrangements can be used to coordinate multiple funding flows, mitigate unfavourable consequences and identify issues associated with the implementation of relevant governance measures.

How do healthcare providers respond to multiple funding flows? A conceptual framework and options to align them.

Provider payment methods are a key health policy lever because they influence healthcare provider behaviour and affect health system objectives, such as efficiency, equity, financial protection and quality. Previous research focused on analysing individual provider payment methods in isolation, or on the actions of individual purchasers. However, purchasers typically use a mix of provider payment methods to pay healthcare providers and most health systems are fragmented with multiple purchasers. From a health provider perspective, these different payments are experienced as multiple funding flows which together send a complex set of signals about where they should focus their effort. In this article, we argue that there is a need to expand the analysis of provider payment methods to include an analysis of the interactions of multiple funding flows and the combined effect of their incentives on the provision of healthcare services. The purpose of the article is to highlight the importance of multiple funding flows to health facilities and present a conceptual framework to guide their analysis. The framework hypothesizes that when healthcare providers receive multiple funding flows, they may find certain funding flows more favourable than others based on how these funding flows compare to each other on a range of attributes. This creates a set of incentives, and consequently, healthcare providers may alter their behaviour in three ways: resource shifting, service shifting and cost shifting. We describe these behaviours and how they may affect health system objectives. Our analysis underlines the need to align the incentives generated by multiple funding flows. To achieve this, we propose three policy strategies that relate to the governance of healthcare purchasing: reducing the fragmentation of health financing arrangements to decrease the number of multiple purchaser arrangements and funding flows; harmonizing signals from multiple funding flows; and constraining providers from responding to undesirable incentives.