Determinants of government spending on primary healthcare: a global data analysis.

In 2018 global leaders renewed their political commitment to primary healthcare (PHC) ratifying the Declaration of Astana emphasising the importance of building a sustainable PHC system based on accessible and affordable delivery models strengthened by community empowerment. Yet, PHC often remains underfunded, of poor quality, unreliable and not accountable to users which further deprives PHC of funding. This paper analyses the determinants of PHC expenditure in 102 countries, and quantitatively tests the influence of a set of economic, social and political determinants of government expenditure on PHC. The analysis is focused on the determinants of PHC funding from government sources as the government is in a position to make decisions in relation to this expenditure as opposed to out-of-pocket spending which is not in their direct control. Multivariate regression analysis was done to determine statistically significant predictors.Our analysis found that some economic factors-namely Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, government commitment to health and tax revenue raising capacity-were strongly associated with per capita government spending on PHC. We also found that control of corruption was strongly associated with the level of total spending on PHC, while voice and accountability were positively associated with greater government commitment to PHC as measured by government spending on PHC as a share of total government health spending.Our analysis takes a step towards understanding of the drivers of PHC expenditure beyond the level of national income. Some of these drivers may be beyond the remit of health policy decision makers and relate to broader governance arrangements and political forces in societies. Thus, efforts to prioritise PHC in the health agenda and increase PHC expenditure should recognise the constraints within the political landscapes and engage with a wide range of actors who influence decisions affecting the health sector.

Methodological issues in economic evaluations of emergency transport systems in low-income and middle-income countries.

A recent systematic review identified few papers on the economic evaluation of systems for emergency transport of acutely ill or injured patients. In addition, we found no articles dealing with the methodological challenges posed by such studies in low-income or middle-income countries. We therefore carried out an analysis of issues that are of particular salience to this important topic. This is an intellectual study in which we develop models, identify their limitations, suggest potential extensions to the models and discuss priorities for empirical studies to populate models. First, we develop a general model to calculate changes in survival contingent on the reduced time to treatment that an emergency transport system is designed to achieve. Second, we develop a model to estimate transfer times over an area that will be served by a proposed transfer system. Third, we discuss difficulties in obtaining parameters with which to populate the models. Fourth, we discuss costs, both direct and indirect, of an emergency transfer service. Fifth, we discuss the issue that outcomes other than survival should be considered and that the effects of a service are a weighted sum over all the conditions and severities for which the service caters. Lastly, based on the above work, we identify priorities for research. To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify and frame issues in the health economics of acute transfer systems and to develop models to calculate survival rates from basic parameters, such as time delay/survival relationships, that vary by intervention type and context.

Identifying, Prioritizing and Visually Mapping Barriers to Injury Care in Rwanda: A Multi-disciplinary Stakeholder Exercise.

BACKGROUND: Whilst injuries are a major cause of disability and death worldwide, a large proportion of people in low- and middle-income countries lack timely access to injury care. Barriers to accessing care from the point of injury to return to function have not been delineated. METHODS: A two-day workshop was held in Kigali, Rwanda in May 2019 with representation from health providers, academia, and government. A four delays model (delays to seeking, reaching, receiving, and remaining in care) was applied to injury care. Participants identified barriers at each delay and graded, through consensus, their relative importance. Following an iterative voting process, the four highest priority barriers were identified. Based on workshop findings and a scoping review, a map was created to visually represent injury care access as a complex health-system problem. RESULTS: Initially, 42 barriers were identified by the 34 participants. 19 barriers across all four delays were assigned high priority; highest-priority barriers were "Training and retention of specialist staff", "Health education/awareness of injury severity", "Geographical coverage of referral trauma centres", and "Lack of protocol for bypass to referral centres". The literature review identified evidence relating to 14 of 19 high-priority barriers. Most barriers were mapped to more than one of the four delays, visually represented in a complex health-system map. CONCLUSION: Overcoming barriers to ensure access to quality injury care requires a multifaceted approach which considers the whole patient journey from injury to rehabilitation. Our results can guide researchers and policymakers planning future interventions.

Correction: The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.].

The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Expanding public health insurance seeks to attain several desirable objectives, including increasing access to healthcare services, reducing the risk of catastrophic healthcare expenditures, and improving health outcomes. The extent to which these objectives are met in a real-world policy context remains an empirical question of increasing research and policy interest in recent years. METHODS: We reviewed systematically empirical studies published from July 2010 to September 2016 using Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL Plus via EBSCO, and Web of Science and grey literature databases. No language restrictions were applied. Our focus was on both randomised and observational studies, particularly those including explicitly attempts to tackle selection bias in estimating the treatment effect of health insurance. The main outcomes are: (1) utilisation of health services, (2) financial protection for the target population, and (3) changes in health status. FINDINGS: 8755 abstracts and 118 full-text articles were assessed. Sixty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria including six randomised studies, reflecting a substantial increase in the quantity and quality of research output compared to the time period before 2010. Overall, health insurance schemes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been found to improve access to health care as measured by increased utilisation of health care facilities (32 out of 40 studies). There also appeared to be a favourable effect on financial protection (26 out of 46 studies), although several studies indicated otherwise. There is moderate evidence that health insurance schemes improve the health of the insured (9 out of 12 studies). INTERPRETATION: Increased health insurance coverage generally appears to increase access to health care facilities, improve financial protection and improve health status, although findings are not totally consistent. Understanding the drivers of differences in the outcomes of insurance reforms is critical to inform future implementations of publicly funded health insurance to achieve the broader goal of universal health coverage.

The impact of public health insurance on healthcare utilisation in Indonesia: evidence from panel data.

OBJECTIVES: This study is the first rigorous evaluation of the impact of Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN) on improving access to outpatient and inpatient care, utilising longitudinal data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey. METHODS: Two treatment groups were identified: a contributory group (N = 982), who paid the premium voluntarily, and a subsidised group (N = 2503), paid by government. Each group was compared with the uninsured group (N = 8576). Propensity score matching combined with difference-in-difference approaches was used to estimate the causal effect of the JKN programme. RESULTS: The results found that JKN increased the probability of inpatient admission for the contributory and subsidised groups by 8.2% (95% CI 5.9-10.5%) and 1.8% (95% CI 0.7-2.82%), respectively. The contributory group had an increase in probability of an outpatient visit of 7.9% (95% CI 4.3-11.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The JKN programme has increased the utilisation of outpatient and inpatient care in the contributory group. Those with subsidised insurance have an increase in access to inpatient facilities only, and this is of a smaller magnitude. Hence, while JKN has improved average utilisation, inequity in access to both outpatient and inpatient care may remain.

Comparing Health Care Financing in Indonesia and Thailand from 1995-2010: What Lessons Could Be Learned?

Purpose: In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) released its report about health system financing and identified universal coverage as the best way to attain the right of every human being to enjoy "the highest attainable standard of health". Over the past decade, Thailand has successfully implemented a universal health coverage scheme for its population, while its neighbor country, Indonesia, is still struggling to achieve the same goal. The purpose of this paper is to compare the health financing systems between Thailand and Indonesia. Both countries almost have similar socioeconomic conditions and suffered from severe financial crisis during the late 1990s. The objective of this study is to examine health systems in each country and to determine lessons on how health care financing can affect the health status of a population. Methods: The study is based on statistical data from various publicly available resources. For analysis, the authors followed The Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual Version 1.0 issued by Health Systems 20/20 supported by United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The countries were compared using three groups of indicators in health systems performance and functioning: 1. Health Insurance System, 2. Amount and Sources of Financial Resources, and 3. Health Outcomes and Health Workforce Density. Results: In comparing the health financing of the two countries, we found that Thailand initiated much earlier health systems reforms in order to achieve universal health coverage. Indonesia, while on the right track, has moved at a slower pace than Thailand. Thailand and Indonesia have shown improving trends over time in all indicators, but Thailand outperformed Indonesia, especially in the groups of indicators regarding the amount and sources of financial resources. Conclusions: One important lesson identified in this study is that health care reform is unlikely to succeed without strong political support and constant pressure from the nation as a whole, which can be represented by local organizations or professional associations. However, the mere increase of available resources devoted to the health sector does not guarantee significant improvements of health outcomes of a population.