Informal payments in health facilities in Peru in 2018: Analysis of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The Latin American region demonstrates the lowest levels of trust in health systems globally. Institutional corruption is a major factor in eroding trust. Corruption in health services, including extracting bribes and informal payments from patients, directly harms health outcomes and weakens services intended as public goods. In this study, we aim to characterize the frequency and distribution of informal payments within public health services in Peru. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a nationally representative cross-sectional survey, the 2018 National Household Survey of Living Conditions and Poverty, and identified all individuals reporting health insurance from the Ministry of Health (SIS-MINSA) or Social Security (ESSALUD). We defined self-reported informal payments in 2 ways: 1) being asked to pay a bribe at a health establishment in the past year (direct method), and 2) creating an overall indicator for non-zero cost of care for services that should be free (indirect method). We used descriptive statistics to quantify informal payments and bivariate analysis to identify sociodemographic characteristics of those most frequently reporting such payments. FINDINGS: 132,355 people were surveyed, including 69,839 (52.8%) with coverage from SIS-MINSA and 30,461 (23.03%) from ESSALUD. Less than 1% of participants directly reported informal payments, either at SIS-MINSA services (0.22%); or at ESSALUD (0.42%). Indirect reporting was more prevalent, including up to 10% of surgery patients and 17% of those hospitalized in SIS-MINSA facilities. Wealthier patients (19%) were more likely to report such payments. INTERPRETATION: While direct reporting of bribery was uncommon, we found moderate prevalence of informal payments in public health services in Peru using an indirect assessment method. Indirect reporting may exceed direct reporting due to difficulty in distinguishing appropriate and inappropriate payments, fear of reporting health care workers' behavior, or social tolerance of informal payments. Informal payments were more common among those with greater financial capital, indicating they may obtain enhanced services. Further research on patients' perception and reporting of informal payments is a key step towards accurate measurement and evidence-based intervention.

Health system quality and COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional analysis in 14 countries.

The social and behavioural determinants of COVID-19 vaccination have been described previously. However, little is known about how vaccinated people use and rate their health system. We used surveys conducted in 14 countries to study the health system correlates of COVID-19 vaccination. Country-specific logistic regression models were adjusted for respondent age, education, income, chronic illness, history of COVID-19, urban residence, and minority ethnic, racial, or linguistic group. Estimates were summarised across countries using random effects meta-analysis. Vaccination coverage with at least two or three doses ranged from 29% in India to 85% in Peru. Greater health-care use, having a regular and high-quality provider, and receiving other preventive health services were positively associated with vaccination. Confidence in the health system and government also increased the odds of vaccination. By contrast, having unmet health-care needs or experiencing discrimination or a medical mistake decreased the odds of vaccination. Associations between health system predictors and vaccination tended to be stronger in high-income countries and in countries with the most COVID-19-related deaths. Access to quality health systems might affect vaccine decisions. Building strong primary care systems and ensuring a baseline level of quality that is affordable for all should be central to pandemic preparedness strategies.

Measuring people's views on health system performance: Design and development of the People's Voice Survey.

Todd Lewis and co-authors discuss development and use of the People's Voice Survey for health system assessment.

A systematic review of population and patient perspectives and experiences as measured in Latin American and Caribbean surveys.

High-quality health systems must provide accessible, people-centred care to both improve health and maintain population trust in health services. Furthermore, accurate measurement of population perspectives is vital to hold health systems accountable and to inform improvement efforts. To describe the current state of such measures in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), we conducted a systematic review of facility and population-based assessments that included patient-reported experience and satisfaction measures. Five databases were searched for publications on quantitative surveys assessing healthcare quality in Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking LAC countries, focusing on the domains of processes of care and quality impacts. We included articles published since 2011 with a national sampling frame or inclusion of multiple subnational regions. We tabulated and described these articles, identifying, classifying and summarizing the items used to assess healthcare quality into the domains mentioned earlier. Of the 5584 publications reviewed, 58 articles met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional (95%), assessed all levels of healthcare (57%) and were secondary analyses of existing surveys (86%). The articles yielded 33 unique surveys spanning 12 LAC countries; only eight of them are regularly administered surveys. The most common quality domains assessed were satisfaction (in 33 out of 58 articles, 57%), evidence-based/effective care (34%), waiting times (33%), clear communication (33%) and ease of use (31%). Items and reported ratings varied widely among instruments used, time points and geographical settings. Assessment of patient-reported quality measures through population- and facility-based surveys is present but heterogeneous in LAC countries. Satisfaction was measured frequently, although its use in accountability or informing quality improvement is limited. Measurement of healthcare quality in LAC needs to be more systematic, regular, comprehensive and to be led collaboratively by researchers, governments and policymakers to enable comparison of results across countries and to effectively inform policy implementation.