Aligning priorities in Ethiopian health finance: How do the essential health services package and health benefit plans compare?

Priority setting is a key function of health systems in low- and middle-income countries that seek to achieve universal health coverage. Essential health services packages (EHSPs) and health benefit plans are two types of instruments used in setting health care priorities. Both instruments exist in Ethiopia, but little is known about how they are aligned. To gain insights into the evolution, purpose, policy objectives, and governance of the EHSP, community-based health insurance (CBHI), and social health insurance (SHI) in Ethiopia, we conducted a case study. This included a desk review of relevant documents as well as qualitative analysis of key informant interviews conducted with 15 leading health finance experts in Addis Ababa. Interviewees understood the EHSP to be a key priority-setting instrument in the country by coordinating the activities of health system stakeholders, and guaranteeing the right of citizens to a basic level of care. Community-based health insurance and SHI were described as mechanisms for the government to expand health coverage and provide financial protection. Interviewees acknowledged that Ethiopia had drawn on the experience of other countries when designing health benefit plans, but contrasted Ethiopia's experience with that of other countries. We found that in Ethiopia, the EHSP, CBHI, and SHI are not explicitly aligned. We propose that EHSPs play an important role in early stages of health systems development. However, as governments develop health benefit plans with expansive packages of services, the importance of EHSPs becomes less clear.

Implementation of hospital governing boards: views from the field.

BACKGROUND: Decentralization through the establishment of hospital governing boards has been touted as an effective way to improve the quality and efficiency of hospitals in low-income countries. Although several studies have examined the process of decentralization, few have quantitatively assessed the implementation of hospital governing boards and their impact on hospital performance. Therefore, we sought to describe the functioning of governing boards and to determine the association between governing board functioning and hospital performance. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with governing board chairpersons to assess board (1) structure, (2) roles and responsibilities and (3) training and orientation practices. Using bivariate analysis and multivariable regression, we examined the association between governing board functioning and hospital performance. Hospital performance indicators: 1) percent of hospital management standards met, measured with the Ethiopian Hospital Reform Implementation Guidelines and 2) patient experience, measured with the Inpatient and Outpatient Assessment of Healthcare surveys. RESULTS: A total of 92 boards responded to the survey (96% response rate). The average percentage of EHRIG standards met was 58.1% (standard deviation (SD) 21.7 percentage points), and the mean overall patient experience score was 7.2 (SD 2.2). Hospitals with greater hospital management standards met had governing boards that paid members, reviewed performance in several domains quarterly or more frequently, developed new revenue sources, determined services to be outsourced, reviewed patient complaints, and had members with knowledge in business and financial management (all P-values < 0.05). Hospitals with more positive patient experience had governing boards that developed new revenue sources, determined services to be outsourced, and reviewed patient complaints (all P-values < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These cross-sectional data suggest that strengthening governing boards to perform essential responsibilities may result in improved hospital performance.