Measuring and paying for quality of care in performance-based financing: Experience from seven low and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Zambia).

BACKGROUND: Performance-based financing (PBF) both measures and determines payments based on the quality of care delivered and is emerging as a potential tool to improve quality. METHODS: Comparative case study methodology was used to analyze common challenges and lessons learned in quality of care across seven PBF programs (Democratic Republic of Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Zambia). The eight case studies, across seven PBF programs, compared were commissioned by the USAID-funded Translating Research into Action (TRAction) project (n = 4), USAID's Health Finance and Government project (n = 3), and from the Global Delivery Initiative (n = 1). RESULTS: The programs show similar design features to assess quality, but significant heterogeneity in their application. The seven programs included 18 unique quality checklists, containing over 1400 quality of care indicators, with an average per checklist of 116 indicators (ranging from 26-228). The quality checklists share a focus on structural components of quality (representing 80% of indicators on average, ranging from 38%-91%). Process indicators constituted an average of 20% across all checklists (ranging from 8.4% to 61.5%), with the majority measuring the correct application of care protocols for MCH services including child immunization. The sample included only one example of an outcome indicator from Kyrgyzstan. Performance data demonstrated a modest upward improvement over time in checklist scores across schemes, however, achievements plateaued at 60%-70%, with small or rural clinics reporting difficulty achieving payment thresholds due to limited resources and poor infrastructure. Payment allocations (distribution) and thresholds (for payments), data transparency, and approaches to measuring (verification) of quality differ across schemes. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities exist in the processes that govern the design of PBF mechanisms, yet substantial heterogeneity in the experiences of implementing quality of care components in PBF programs are evident. This comparison suggests tailoring further the quality component of PBF programs to local and country contexts, and a need to better understand how quality is measured in practice. The growing operational experiences with PBF programs in different settings offer opportunities to learn from best practices, improve ongoing and future programs, and inform research to alleviate current challenges.

How do performance-based financing programmes measure quality of care? A descriptive analysis of 68 quality checklists from 28 low- and middle-income countries.

This paper seeks to systematically describe the length and content of quality checklists used in performance-based financing programmes, their similarities and differences, and how checklists have evolved over time. We compiled a list of supply-side, health facility-based performance-based financing (PBF) programmes in low- and lower middle-income countries based on a document review. We then solicited PBF manuals and quality checklists from implementers and donors of these PBF mechanisms. We entered each indicator from each quality checklist into a database verbatim in English, and translated into English from French where appropriate, and categorized each indicator according to the Donabedian framework and an author-derived categorization. We extracted 8,490 quality indicators from 68 quality checklists across 32 PBF implementations in 28 countries. On average, checklists contained 125 indicators; within the same program, checklists tend to grow as they are updated. Using the Donabedian framework, 80% of indicators were structure-type, 19% process-type, and less than 1% outcome-type. The author-derived categorization showed that 57% of indicators relate to availability of resources, 24% to managing the facility and 17% assess knowledge and effort. There is a high degree of similarity in a narrow set of indicators used in checklists for common service types such as maternal, neonatal and child health. We conclude that performance-based financing offers an appealing approach to targeting specific quality shortfalls and advancing toward the Sustainable Development Goals of high quality coverage. Currently most indicators focus on structural issues and resource availability. There is scope to rationalize and evolve the quality checklists of these programs to help achieve national and global goals to improve quality of care.

Quality of Care in Performance-Based Financing: How It Is Incorporated in 32 Programs Across 28 Countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how quality of care is incorporated into performance-based financing (PBF) programs, what quality indicators are being used, and how these indicators are measured and verified. METHODS: An exploratory scoping methodology was used to characterize the full range of quality components in 32 PBF programs, initiated between 2008 and 2015 in 28 low- and middle-income countries, totaling 68 quality tools and 8,490 quality indicators. The programs were identified through a review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature as well as through expert consultation with key donor representatives. FINDINGS: Most of the PBF programs were implemented in sub-Saharan Africa and most were funded primarily by the World Bank. On average, PBF quality tools contained 125 indicators predominately assessing maternal, newborn, and child health and facility management and infrastructure. Indicators were primarily measured via checklists (78%, or 6,656 of 8,490 indicators), which largely (over 90%) measured structural aspects of quality, such as equipment, beds, and infrastructure. Of the most common indicators across checklists, 74% measured structural aspects and 24% measured processes of clinical care. The quality portion of the payment formulas were in the form of bonuses (59%), penalties (27%), or both (hybrid) (14%). The median percentage (of a performance payment) allocated to health facilities was 60%, ranging from 10% to 100%, while the median percentage allocated to health care providers was 55%, ranging from 20% to 80%. Nearly all of the programs included in the analysis (91%, n=29) verified quality scores quarterly (every 3 months), typically by regional government teams. CONCLUSION: PBF is a potentially appealing instrument to address shortfalls in quality of care by linking verified performance measurement with strategic incentives and could ultimately help meet policy priorities at the country and global levels, including the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals. The substantial variation and complexity in how PBF programs incorporate quality of care considerations suggests a need to further examine whether differences in design are associated with differential program impacts.

Tracking Global Fund HIV/AIDS resources used for sexual and reproductive health service integration: case study from Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria (GF) strives for high value for money, encouraging countries to integrate synergistic services and systems strengthening to maximize investments. The GF needs to show how, and how much, its grants support more than just HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) has been part of HIV/AIDS grants since 2007. Previous studies showed the GF PBF system does not allow resource tracking for SRH integration within HIV/AIDS grants. We present findings from a resource tracking case study using primary data collected at country level. METHODS: Ethiopia was the study site. We reviewed data from four HIV/AIDS grants from January 2009-June 2011 and categorized SDAs and activities as directly, indirectly, or not related to SRH integration. Data included: GF PBF data; financial, performance, in-depth interview and facility observation data from Ethiopia. RESULTS: All HIV/AIDS grants in Ethiopia support SRH integration activities (12-100%). Using activities within SDAs, expenditures directly supporting SRH integration increased from 25% to 66% for the largest HIV/AIDS grant, and from 21% to 34% for the smaller PMTCT-focused grant. Using SDAs to categorize expenditures underestimated direct investments in SRH integration; activity-based categorization is more accurate. The important finding is that primary data collection could not resolve the limitations in using GF GPR data for resource tracking. The remedy is to require existing activity-based budgets and expenditure reports as part of PBF reporting requirements, and make them available in the grant portfolio database. The GF should do this quickly, as it is a serious shortfall in the GF guiding principle of transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Showing high value for money is important for maximizing impact and replenishments. The Global Fund should routinely track HIV/AIDs grant expenditures to disease control, service integration, and overall health systems strengthening. The current PBF system will not allow this. Real-time expenditure analysis could be achieved by integrating existing activity-based financial data into the routine PBF system. The GF's New Funding Model and the 2012-2016 strategy present good opportunities for over-hauling the PBF system to improve transparency and allow the GF to monitor and maximize value for money.