Scaling up family planning in Sierra Leone: A prospective cost-benefit analysis.

Family planning is commonly regarded as a highly cost-effective health intervention with wider social and economic benefits. Yet use of family planning services in Sierra Leone is currently low and 25.0% of married women have an unmet need for contraception. This study aims to estimate the costs and benefits of scaling up family planning in Sierra Leone. Using the OneHealth Tool, two scenarios of scaling up family planning coverage to currently married women in Sierra Leone over 2013-2035 were assessed and compared to a 'no-change' counterfactual. Our costing included direct costs of drugs, supplies and personnel time, programme costs and a share of health facility overhead costs. To monetise the benefits, we projected the cost savings of the government providing five essential social services - primary education, child immunisation, malaria prevention, maternal health services and improved drinking water - in the scale-up scenarios compared to the counterfactual. The total population, estimated at 6.1 million in 2013, is projected to reach 8.3 million by 2035 in the high scenario compared to a counterfactual of 9.6 million. We estimate that by 2035, there will be 1400 fewer maternal deaths and 700 fewer infant deaths in the high scenario compared to the counterfactual. Our modelling suggests that total costs of the family planning programme in Sierra Leone will increase from US$4.2 million in 2013 to US$10.6 million a year by 2035 in the high scenario. For every dollar spent on family planning, Sierra Leone is estimated to save US$2.10 in expenditure on the five selected social sector services over the period. There is a strong investment case for scaling up family planning services in Sierra Leone. The ambitious scale-up scenarios have historical precedent in other sub-Saharan African countries, but the extent to which they will be achieved depends on a commitment from both the government and donors to strengthening Sierra Leone's health system post-Ebola.

Public hospital care: equal for all or equal for some? Evidence from the Philippines.

In low- and middle-income countries, government budgets are rarely sufficient to cover a public hospital's operating costs. Shortfalls are typically financed through a combination of health insurance contributions and user charges. The mixed nature of this financing arrangement potentially creates financial incentives to treat patients with equal health need unequally. Using data from the Philippines, the authors analyzed whether doctors respond to such incentives. After controlling for a patient's condition, they found that patients using insurance, paying more for hospital accommodation, and being treated in externally monitored hospitals were likely to receive more care. This highlights the worrying possibility that public hospital patients with equal health needs are not always equally treated.

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in tropical and low and middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-regression.

OBJECTIVE: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP), the commonest opportunistic infection in HIV-infected patients in the developed world, is less commonly described in tropical and low and middle income countries (LMIC). We sought to investigate predictors of PCP in these settings. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-regression. METHODS: Meta-regression of predictors of PCP diagnosis (33 studies). Qualitative and quantitative assessment of recorded CD4 counts, receipt of prophylaxis and antiretrovirals, sensitivity and specificity of clinical signs and symptoms for PCP, co-infection with other pathogens, and case fatality (117 studies). RESULTS: The most significant predictor of PCP was per capita Gross Domestic Product, which showed strong linear association with odds of PCP diagnosis (p<0.0001). This was not explained by study design or diagnostic quality. Geographical area, population age, study setting and year of study also contributed to risk of PCP. Co-infection was common (444 episodes/1425 PCP cases), frequently with virulent organisms. The predictive value of symptoms, signs or simple tests in LMIC settings for diagnosis of PCP was poor. Case fatality was >30%; treatment was largely appropriate. Prophylaxis appeared to reduce the risk for development of PCP, however 24% of children with PCP were receiving prophylaxis. CD4 counts at presentation with PCP were usually <200×10(3/)ml. CONCLUSIONS: There is a positive relationship between GDP and risk of PCP diagnosis. Although failure to diagnose infection in poorer countries may contribute to this, we also hypothesise that poverty exposes at-risk patients to a wide range of infections and that the relatively non-pathogenic P. jirovecii is therefore under-represented. As LMIC develop economically they eliminate the conditions underlying transmission of virulent infection: P. jirovecii, ubiquitous in all settings, then becomes a greater relative threat.

General budget support: has it benefited the health sector?

There has been recent controversy about whether aid directed specifically to health has caused recipient governments to reallocate their own funds to non-health areas. At the same time, general budget support (GBS) has been increasing. GBS allows governments to set their own priorities, but little is known about how these additional resources are subsequently used. This paper uses cross-country panel data to assess the impact of GBS programmes on health spending in low-income and middle-income countries, using dynamic panel techniques to estimate unbiased coefficients in the presence of serial correlation. We found no clear evidence that GBS had any impact, positive or negative, on government health spending derived from domestic sources. GBS also had no observed impact on total government health spending from all sources (external as well as domestic). In contrast, health-specific aid was associated with a decline in health expenditures from domestic sources, but there was not a full substitution effect. That is, despite this observed fungibility, health-specific aid still increases total government health spending from all sources. Finally, increases in total government expenditure led to substantial increases in domestic government health expenditures.

Financial burden of household out-of pocket health expenditure in Viet Nam: findings from the National Living Standard Survey 2002-2010.

In Viet Nam, household direct out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditure as a share of the total health expenditure has been always high, ranging from 50% to 70%. The high share of OOP expenditure has been linked to different inequity problems such as catastrophic health expenditure (households must reduce their expenditure on other necessities) and impoverishment. This paper aims to examine catastrophic and poverty impacts of household out-of-pocket health expenditure in Viet Nam over time and identify socio-economic indicators associated with them. Data used in this research were obtained from a nationally representative household survey, Viet Nam Living Standard Survey 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. The findings revealed that there were problems in health care financing in Viet Nam - many households encountered catastrophic health expenditure and/or were pushed into poverty due to health care payments. The issues were pervasive over time. Catastrophic expenditure and impoverishment problems were more common among the households who had more elderly people and those located in rural areas. Importantly, the financial protection aspect of the national health insurance schemes was still modest. Given these findings, more attention is needed on developing methods of financial protection in Viet Nam.

An unhealthy public-private tension: pharmacy ownership, prescribing, and spending in the Philippines.

Physicians' links with pharmacies may create perverse financial incentives to overprescribe, prescribe products with higher profit margins, and direct patients to their pharmacy. Interviews with pharmacy customers in the Philippines show that those who use pharmacies linked to public-sector physicians had 5.4 greater odds of having a prescription from such physicians and spent 49.3 percent more than customers using other pharmacies. For customers purchasing brand-name medicines, switching to generics would reduce drug spending by 58 percent. Controlling out-of-pocket spending on drugs requires policies to control financial links between doctors and pharmacies, as well as tighter regulation of nongeneric prescribing.

To retain or remove user fees?: reflections on the current debate in low- and middle-income countries.

Many low- and middle-income countries continue to search for better ways of financing their health systems. Common to many of these systems are problems of inadequate resource mobilisation, as well as inefficient and inequitable use of existing resources. The poor and other vulnerable groups who need healthcare the most are also the most affected by these shortcomings. In particular, these groups have a high reliance on user fees and other out-of-pocket expenditures on health which are both impoverishing and provide a financial barrier to care. It is within this context, and in light of recent policy initiatives on user fee removal, that a debate on the role of user fees in health financing systems has recently returned. This paper provides some reflections on the recent user fees debate, drawing from the evidence presented and subsequent discussions at a recent UNICEF consultation on user fees in the health sector, and relates the debate to the wider issue of access to adequate healthcare. It is argued that, from the wealth of evidence on user fees and other health system reforms, a broad consensus is emerging. First, user fees are an important barrier to accessing health services, especially for poor people. They also negatively impact on adherence to long-term expensive treatments. However, this is offset to some extent by potentially positive impacts on quality. Secondly, user fees are not the only barrier that the poor face. As well as other cost barriers, a number of quality, information and cultural barriers must also be overcome before the poor can access adequate health services. Thirdly, initial evidence on fee abolition in Uganda suggests that this policy has improved access to outpatient services for the poor. For this to be sustainable and effective in reaching the poor, fee removal needs to be part of a broader package of reforms that includes increased budgets to offset lost fee revenue (as was the case in Uganda). Fourthly, implementation matters: if fees are to be abolished, this needs clear communication with a broad stakeholder buy-in, careful monitoring to ensure that official fees are not replaced by informal fees, and appropriate management of the alternative financing mechanisms that are replacing user fees. Fifthly, context is crucial. For instance, immediate fee removal in Cambodia would be inappropriate, given that fees replaced irregular and often high informal fees. In this context, equity funds and eventual expansion of health insurance are perhaps more viable policy options. Conversely, in countries where user fees have had significant adverse effects on access and generated only limited benefits, fee abolition is probably a more attractive policy option. Removing user fees has the potential to improve access to health services, especially for the poor, but it is not appropriate in all contexts. Analysis should move on from broad evaluations of user fees towards exploring how best to dismantle the multiple barriers to access in specific contexts.