Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters.

This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: (1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; (2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and (3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%).La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre a medida do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme as propostas da Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), usando a metodologia mundialmente aceita para reportar gastos em saúde ­ o System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011) ­ em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão exclusivamente de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes arranjos de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito a medição e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

[Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what mattersGasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa]. / Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: medir o que importa.

This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%). La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters

[ABSTRACT]. This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: (1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; (2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and (3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: medir o que importa

[RESUMO]. Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre a medida do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme as propostas da Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), usando a metodologia mundialmente aceita para reportar gastos em saúde – o System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011) – em três países da Região das Américas. Observam- -se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão exclusivamente de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes arranjos de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito a medição e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

[Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what mattersGasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: calcular o que importa]. / Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa.

This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The 30% target for current healthcare spending on PHC proposed by Compact 30-30-30 (Pan American Health Organization) would be surpassed by the WHO definition, but it would be far from achieved by the OECD definition. The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre o cálculo do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme os métodos propostos pela Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), segundo a metodologia System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011), em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão única de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. Esses valores ultrapassam a meta de 30% do GCS em APS sugerida no Pacto 30.30.30 da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde, com a definição proposta pela OMS, e essa meta estaria longe de ser alcançada com a definição proposta pela OCDE. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato que é proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes serviços de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito o cálculo e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa

[RESUMEN]. En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%); superarían la meta del 30% del GCS en APS que propone el Pacto 30-30-30 de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud, con la definición de la OMS y estarían muy lejos de alcanzarla con la de la OCDE. La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa / Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters / Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: calcular o que importa

RESUMEN En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%); superarían la meta del 30% del GCS en APS que propone el Pacto 30-30-30 de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud, con la definición de la OMS y estarían muy lejos de alcanzarla con la de la OCDE. La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

ABSTRACT This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The 30% target for current healthcare spending on PHC proposed by Compact 30-30-30 (Pan American Health Organization) would be surpassed by the WHO definition, but it would be far from achieved by the OECD definition. The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

RESUMO Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre o cálculo do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme os métodos propostos pela Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), segundo a metodologia System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011), em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão única de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. Esses valores ultrapassam a meta de 30% do GCS em APS sugerida no Pacto 30.30.30 da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde, com a definição proposta pela OMS, e essa meta estaria longe de ser alcançada com a definição proposta pela OCDE. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato que é proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes serviços de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito o cálculo e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters / Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa / Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: medir o que importa

ABSTRACT This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: (1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; (2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and (3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

RESUMEN En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%).La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

RESUMO Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre a medida do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme as propostas da Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), usando a metodologia mundialmente aceita para reportar gastos em saúde - o System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011) - em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão exclusivamente de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes arranjos de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito a medição e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

Gasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: medir o que importa / Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters / Gasto en atención primaria en salud en las Américas: medir lo que importa

RESUMO Este informe especial apresenta uma comparação entre a medida do gasto em atenção primária à saúde (APS) conforme as propostas da Organização para a Cooperação e o Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) e da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), usando a metodologia mundialmente aceita para reportar gastos em saúde - o System of Health Accounts (SHA 2011) - em três países da Região das Américas. Observam-se divergências conceituais entre os métodos: 1) operacionalização do conceito como atenção básica pela OCDE ou primeiro contato pela OMS; 2) maior abrangência de bens e serviços de acordo com a definição da OMS (englobando medicamentos, administração e serviços de prevenção em âmbito coletivo) e 3) inclusão exclusivamente de serviços ambulatoriais de acordo com a OCDE. Os gastos em APS como percentual do gasto corrente em saúde (GCS) em 2017, de acordo com os métodos propostos pela OMS e pela OCDE, foram: 43,6% vs. 15,1% no México; 41,1 vs. 5,75% na República Dominicana; e 31,4% vs. 5,7% na Costa Rica. A definição ampla de APS como primeiro contato proposta pela OMS permite incluir os diferentes arranjos de atenção existentes nos países. No entanto, as categorias deveriam ser mais bem detalhadas para facilitar a comparação internacional. Por outro lado, a proposta da OECD restringe a APS aos prestadores de serviços ambulatoriais, o que limita muito a medição e exclui intervenções próprias do conceito de APS, como serviços de prevenção no âmbito coletivo. Numa etapa de transição, recomenda-se aos países monitorar o financiamento da APS, explicitando os itens incluídos na definição empregada. A metodologia SHA 2011 possibilita identificar e comparar essas diferenças.

ABSTRACT This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

RESUMEN En este informe especial se compara la medición del gasto en atención primaria en salud (APS) propuesta por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) según el marco mundial para reportar gastos en salud (SHA 2011) en tres países de la región de las Américas. Hay divergencias conceptuales: 1) la operacionalización como atención básica, por OCDE, o primer contacto, por OMS; 2) la mayor amplitud de bienes y servicios en la definición de OMS (incluye medicamentos, administración y servicios preventivos colectivos); 3) la consideración únicamente de servicios en proveedores ambulatorios en OCDE. Los gastos en APS como el porcentaje del gasto corriente en salud (GCS) en 2017 para OMS y OCDE, serían: México (43,6% vs 15.1%); República Dominicana (41,1 vs 5,75%) y Costa Rica (31,4% vs 5,7%). La definición amplia de APS como primer contacto de OMS facilita la inclusión de servicios que reflejan la forma en que los países ofrecen atención a su población. Aun así, la OMS podría mejorar las descripciones de las categorías incluidas para fines de comparación internacional. Restringir la APS a proveedores ambulatorios como hace OCDE limita mucho la medición y excluye intervenciones intrínsecas al concepto de APS, como servicios colectivos de prevención. Como paso transitorio se recomienda a los países que monitoreen el financiamiento de la APS, explicitando qué incluyen en su definición. El SHA 2011 permite identificar y comparar estas diferencias.

Corrigendum to Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters

[ABSTRACT]. The Pan American Journal of Public Health draws readers' attention to an error in the following article, pointed out by the authors: Rathe M, Hernández-Peña P, Pescetto C, Van Mosseveld C, Borges dos Santos MA and Rivas L. Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e70. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.70 In page 3, table 1, HC.3.4 Outpatient long-term care (health), should read HC.3.4 Home-based long-term care (health).

[RESUMEN]. La Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública llama la atención a los lectores sobre un error en el siguiente artículo, señalado por los autores: Rathe M, Hernández-Peña P, Pescetto C, Van Mosseveld C, Borges dos Santos MA and Rivas L. Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e70. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.70 En la página 3, cuadro 1, HC.3.4 Outpatient long-term care (health), debe leerse HC.3.4 Home-based long-term care (health).

[RESUMO]. A Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública chama a atenção dos leitores para um erro no artigo a seguir, apontado pelos autores: Rathe M, Hernández-Peña P, Pescetto C, Van Mosseveld C, Borges dos Santos MA and Rivas L. Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e70. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.70 Na página 3, tabela 1 HC.3.4 Outpatient long-term care (health), deve ler HC.3.4 Home-based long-term care (health).

Government Expenditure on Maternal Health and Family Planning Services for Adolescents in Mexico, 2003-2015.

The purpose of this study was to assess whether government policies to expand the coverage of maternal health and family planning (MHFP) services were benefiting the adolescents in need. To this end, we estimated government MHFP expenditure for 10- to 19-year-old adolescents without social security (SS) coverage between 2003 and 2015. We evaluated its evolution and distribution nationally and sub-nationally by level of marginalization, as well as its relationship with demand indicators. Using Jointpoint regressions, we estimated the average annual percent change (AAPC) nationally and among states. Expenditure for adolescents without SS coverage registered 15% for AAPC for the period 2003-2011 and was stable for the remaining years, with 88% of spending allocated to maternal health. Growth in MHFP expenditure reduced the ratio of spending by 13% among groups of states with greater/lesser marginalization; nonetheless, the poorest states continued to show the lowest levels of expenditure. Although adolescents without SS coverage benefited from greater MHFP expenditure as a consequence of health policies directed at achieving universal health coverage, gaps persisted in its distribution among states, since those with similar demand indicators exhibited different levels of expenditure. Further actions are required to improve resource allocation to disadvantaged states and to reinforce the use of FP services by adolescents.

Health expenditure data for policy: Health accounts, national accounts or both?

Compatibility of statistical frameworks and comparability of data are aspects of statistical quality. This paper explores comparability of data from National Accounts (NA) and Care Accounts/health accounts (CA&HA) of the Netherlands. Although based on the same sources, differences result from specificities of each framework, making data adjustments necessary. Data comparison of major aggregates and household spending is a means for verification and for triangulation of sources. Monitoring household spending on health is one of the Sustainable Development Goals. The usability of NA data for household consumption estimates is key to judge plausibility of household spending levels. However, definitions, coverage and valuation in NA and CA&HA should be understood to benefit from the use of NA data for HA. More than in the concepts used the strength of NA is the way NA are usually produced compared with HA. Key is the integrated analysis including supply and demand to verify the comprehensiveness and consistency. It is concluded that SUT data of NA on consumption of human health and social care can be used for judging plausibility of HA household spending estimates, and, in the absence of the latter, NA data can directly be used. The case of the Netherlands shows that policy measures can have a large impact on the validity of using NA for the estimation of household spending.

Countdown to 2015 country case studies: what can analysis of national health financing contribute to understanding MDG 4 and 5 progress?

BACKGROUND: Countdown to 2015 (Countdown) supported countries to produce case studies that examine how and why progress was made toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5. Analysing how health-financing data explains improvements in RMNCH outcomes was one of the components to the case studies. METHODS: This paper presents a descriptive analysis on health financing from six Countdown case studies (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Malawi, Pakistan, Peru, and Tanzania), supplemented by additional data from global databases and country reports on macroeconomic, health financing, demographic, and RMNCH outcome data as needed. It also examines the effect of other contextual factors presented in the case studies to help interpret health-financing data. RESULTS: Dramatic increases in health funding occurred since 2000, where the MDG agenda encouraged countries and donors to invest more resources on health. Most low-income countries relied on external support to increase health spending, with an average 20-64 % of total health spending from 2000 onwards. Middle-income countries relied more on government and household spending. RMNCH funding also increased since 2000, with an average increase of 119 % (2005-2010) for RMNH expenditures (2005-2010) and 165 % for CH expenditures (2005-2011). Progress was made, especially achieving MDG 4, even with low per capita spending; ranging from US$16 to US$44 per child under 5 years among low-income countries. Improvements in distal factors were noted during the time frame of the analysis, including rapid economic growth in Ethiopia, Peru, and Tanzania and improvements in female literacy as documented in Malawi, which are also likely to have contributed to MDG progress and achievements. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in health and RMNCH funding accompanied improvements in outcomes, though low-income countries are still very reliant on external financing, and out-of-pocket comprising a growing share of funds in middle-income settings. Enhancements in tracking RMNCH expenditures across countries are still needed to better understand whether domestic and global health financing initiatives lead to improved outcomes as RMNCH continues to be a priority under the Sustainable Development Goals.

How to ensure quality of health accounts.

Policy makers need up-to-date and reliable information to formulate health policies and monitor their implementation. Given that financing is one of the pillars of the health system, quality of financing data is essential. Quality is a key element but difficult to measure. Increasing quality on financing data involves the use of standard procedures and methods. Current standard framework, the System of Health Accounts 2011, needs to be implemented with checks and controls on the individual as well as aggregated data. Data input on the construction of the accounts and their related metadata are subject to quality measures. In this paper we address a first proposal of the components of the quality in health accounts reporting. The paper assesses Quality Of Health Accounts at four stages: (1) Design; (2) Development; (3) Management; and (4) Reporting. It explains what is needed at each stage to ensure reliable results which are fit for informing decision-making. Quality is essential for reliability and trust among all stakeholders, who are responsible of data provision, construction of the accounts and using their results. Quality measurement in health accounts is a reality needing effort.

[Out-of- pocket expenditures during hospitalization of young leukemia patients with state medical insurance in two Mexican hospitals]. / Gasto de hogares durante la hospitalización de menores derechohabientes, con diagnóstico de leucemia, en dos hospitales en México.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate out-of-pocket expenditures for health care during the first hospitalization of children treated for leukemia in two hospitals of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social-IMSS-). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Mexico City and Leon, Guanajato, Mexico in 1997. The study population consisted of the parents of 51 children under 15 years of age diagnosed with leukemia, who were hospitalized for the first time in two IMSS hospitals. A questionnaire was applied to participants to obtain direct and indirect expenditures during that period. Consumer price indexes (1997-2002) were used to estimate expenditure prices for 2002. Average expenditures and catastrophic expenditures were estimated. Factors associated with expenditures were analyzed using a linear regression model in which the dependent variable was the total household expenditures during hospitalization. RESULTS: The average household cost per hospitalization was 7,318 pesos, 86% of which corresponded to medical care and 14% to indirect costs. Catastrophic expenditures occurred in 14% of households. In 47% of household expenditures exceeded 100% of the total household income during the hospitalization period. Expenditures during hospitalization were associated with place of residence, income level, and type of medical insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Being an IMSS policyholder decreased out-of-pocket expenditures, but not complementary expenditures, which may still be unaffordable for a large segment of the population. For more than a half of the households studied, continuity of care was compromised, as expenditures during the first hospitalization entailed using up savings, going into debt, and/or selling household property.

Gasto de hogares durante la hospitalización de menores derechohabientes, con diagnóstico de leucemia, en dos hospitales en México / Out-of-pocket expenditures during hospitalization of young leukemia patients with state medical insurance in two Mexican hospitals

OBJETIVO: Estimar el gasto de los hogares durante la primera hospitalización en 51 menores de 15 años de edad con leucemia, atendidos en dos hospitales del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, en México durante 1997. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal hecho en 1997 en el Distrito Federal y en León, Guanajuato. Se aplicó un cuestionario a los padres de 51 menores de 15 años de edad con diagnóstico de leucemia, hospitalizados por primera vez, en dos unidades del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Se capturó la información de los costos directos e indirectos enfrentados por los hogares durante esa primera hospitalización. Se aplicó el Indice de Precios al Consumidor (1997-2002) para expresar las estimaciones en precios de 2002. Se estimaron indicadores de gasto promedio y gastos catastróficos. Se establecieron los factores asociados, mediante un modelo de regresión lineal, utilizando el gasto total durante la hospitalización como variable dependiente. RESULTADOS: El costo promedio por paciente hospitalizado es de 7 318 pesos. El 86 por ciento corresponde a gastos asociados con la atención y 14 por ciento a costos indirectos. Para 14 por ciento de los hogares este gasto fue catastrófico. En 47 por ciento de los casos la erogación rebasó 100 por ciento de su ingreso disponible durante el periodo. Estos gastos se asociaron con lugar de residencia, nivel de ingreso y tipo de seguro. CONCLUSIONES: Ser derechohabiente de la seguridad social reduce los gastos de bolsillo por atención directa de los pacientes, pero no reduce los gastos complementarios, que pueden resultar onerosos para una elevada proporción de hogares. El costo de la primera hospitalización significó, en más de la mitad de los casos estudiados, el consumo de los ahorros, el endeudamiento o la venta de propiedades de los hogares, y dificultó la continuidad del tratamiento

The emotional response of families to children with leukemia at the lower socio-economic level in central Mexico: a preliminary report.

Little research has been done in developing countries on the emotional impact experienced by families who have a child diagnosed with leukemia. This preliminary study looked at parents in Mexico who had to cope with their child's leukemia in the face of meager financial and social resources. The 51 children in the study were under 15 years and being treated for leukemia in hospitals affiliated with the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) where their parents were interviewed using a questionnaire to ascertain their emotional responses to the illness. The data are analyzed and reported in five domains: perceived illness; psychological impact; coping strategies; family relationships; socio-economic impact. A strengthening of family bonds was found the most common response (82.4%). The second most common responses were concern for the expenses incurred by the illness and the time dedicated to caring for the sick child (both 78.4%). It is especially important to assess families with meager social and financial resources as to their emotional responses to life-threatening illness because these limitations impose greater burdens and make coping more difficult. Psychosocial interventions are key to ensuring adequate treatment of the child in these circumstances.

Financiamiento de programas de farmacodependencia en la ciudad de México: 1990-1994 / Financing of drug dependency programs in Mexico city: 1990-1994

Objetivo. Analizar el flujo del financiamiento de los programas de farmacodependencia en la ciudad de México, sus fuentes y asignaciones. Material y métodos. Se seleccionó un grupo discreto de instituciones dedicadas a la prevención y el control de la farmacodependencia en la ciudad de México, incluyendo a las instituciones públicas más importantes en el ramo. Se aplicaron encuestas entre administradores y usuarios. Además de integrar los flujos financieros se determinó el gasto por usuario de cada institución. Para el periodo 1990-1993, los gastos se estimaron a partir de los montos financieros asignados a cada programa en 1990 y a valores constantes, para eliminar el efecto de la inflación. Resultados. Las fuentes de financiamiento de las instituciones del grupo estudiado son diversas: de 50 a 90 por ciento provienen del presupuesto federal; de 10 a 20 por ciento, de aportaciones de los usuarios, y de 15 a 80 por ciento, de contribuciones de organizaciones no gubernamentales. Conclusiones. Aunque se han incrementado los montos financieros, en los últimos cuatro años, son insuficientes para el desarrollo de los programas en las instituciones de este estudio, ante la creciente demanda. Se requiere establecer mecanismos que aseguren la captación de recursos necesarios y su uso eficiente. El análisis financiero continuo de estos programas permitirá la toma de decisiones oportuna y una evaluación de los cambios.

Condiciones de trabajo, fatiga laboral y bajo peso al nacer en vendedoras ambulantes / Working conditions, labor fatigue and low birth weight among female street vendors

Objetivo. Este trabajo tipifica las condiciones demográficas, socioeconómicas, laborales, de fatiga laboral y daño reproductivo en una población femenina en edad fértil que trabaja en la venta ambulante en las calles de la Ciudad de México. Material y métodos. Se entrevistaron 426 vendedoras ambulantes. Se describió a la población entrevistada y se exploró la asociación de los componentes de la fatiga laboral con el bajo peso al nacer (BPN) mediante regresión logística, en un subgrupo de mujeres que laboraron en la venta ambulante durante su última gestación Resultados. De las mujeres entrevistadas, 56 por ciento realiza jornadas de trabajo superiores a las 48 horas semanales, 87 por ciento carece de seguridad social y 68 por ciento tiene estudios no mayores de primaria. El riesgo de presentar BPN se eleva cuando se carece de control sobre la cantidad de mercancía a vender (RM 6.5, IC95 por ciento 1.3-31), se venden artículos de ocasión como refacciones y ornamentos (RM 6.3, IC 1.5-26), se exhibe la mercancía sobre el piso o se carga para su venta (RM 7.7, IC95 por ciento 1.8-32), y cuando los recursos para instalar el puesto por primera vez no proceden de la red social de apoyo de la vendedora (RM 7.4, IC95 por ciento 1.2-44). Conclusiones. Estos resultados contribuyen a identificar a las vendedoras con mayor riesgo de presentar un hijo con BPN, y sugerir medidas preventivas

Análisis costo beneficio del Programa de Detección Oportuna del Cáncer Cervicouterino / Cost benefit analysis of the Cervical Cancer Screening Program

Objetivo. Determinar el costo beneficio de la reorganización del Programa de Detección Oportuna del Cáncer Cervicouterino (PDOC) mediante intervenciones de garantía de calidad. Material y métodos. Se siguieron tres estapas: a) identificación y cuantificación de costos; b) identificación y cuantificación de beneficios, y c) evaluación económica del costo beneficio. Resultados. El costo unitario de operación por citología -obtención, fijación, el traslado al centro de lectura, su tinción e interpretación y la notificación de resultados- se estimó en USD$ 11.6. En conjunto, las intervenciones en calidad al PDOC elevarían el costo de cada citología en 32.7 por ciento. Sin embargo, la nueva organización generaría una razón beneficio/costo de 2 y un beneficio neto de 88 millones de dólares para los próximos cinco años. Conclusiones. La operación del programa propuesto resulta socialmente deseable, siempre y cuando las modificaciones se lleven a cabo, particularmente la capacitación, la notificación personalizada de los casos positivos, el incremento de cobertura, la introducción de mecanismos de control de calidad, el monitoreo contínuo y el tratamiento en mujeres con anormalidades detectadas