Has Strategic Purchasing Led to Improvements in Health Systems? A Narrative Review of Literature on Strategic Purchasing.

Strategic purchasing is noted in the literature as an approach that can improve the efficiency of health spending, increase equity in access to health care services, improve the quality of health care delivery, and advance progress toward universal health coverage. However, the evidence on how strategic purchasing can achieve these improvements is sparse. This narrative review sought to address this evidence gap and provide decision makers with lessons and policy recommendations. The authors conducted a systematic review based on two research questions: 1) What is the evidence on how purchasing functions affect purchasers' leverage to improve: resource allocation, incentives, and accountability; intermediate results (allocative and technical efficiency); and health system outcomes (improvements in equity, access, quality, and financial protection)? and 2) What conditions are needed for a country to make progress on strategic purchasing and achieve health system outcomes? We used database searches to identify published literature relevant to these research questions, and we coded the themes that emerged, in line with the purchasing functions-benefits specification, contracting arrangements, provider payment, and performance monitoring-and the outcomes of interest. The extent to which strategic purchasing affects the outcomes of interest in different settings is partly influenced by how the purchasing functions are designed and implemented, the enabling environment (both economic and political), and the level of development of the country's health system and infrastructure. For strategic purchasing to provide more value, sufficient public funding and pooling to reduce fragmentation of schemes is important.

SPARC the Change: What the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center Has Learned about Improving Strategic Health Purchasing in Africa.

Embodied in the goals of universal health coverage (UHC) are societal norms about ethics, equity, solidarity, and social justice. As African countries work toward UHC, it is important for their governments to use all available resources, knowledge, and networks to continue to bring this goal closer to reality for their populations. The Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) was established in 2018 as a "go-to" source of Africa-based expertise in strategic health purchasing, which is a critical policy tool for making more effective use of limited funds for UHC. SPARC facilitates collaboration among governments and research partners across Africa to fill gaps in knowledge on how to make progress on strategic purchasing. The cornerstone of this work has been the development and use of the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework to garner insights from each country's efforts to make health purchasing more strategic. Application of the framework and subsequent dialogue within and between countries generated lessons on effective purchasing approaches that other countries can apply as they chart their own course to use strategic purchasing more effectively. These lessons include the need to clarify the roles of purchasing agencies, define explicit benefit packages as a precondition for other strategic purchasing functions, use contracting to set expectations, start simple with provider payment and avoid open-ended payment mechanisms, and use collaborative rather than punitive provider performance monitoring. SPARC has also facilitated learning on the "how-to" and practical steps countries can take to make progress on strategic purchasing to advance UHC.

Strategic Purchasing Arrangements in Uganda and Their Implications for Universal Health Coverage.

Several purchasing arrangements coexist in Uganda, creating opportunities for synergy but also leading to conflicting incentives and inefficiencies in resource allocation and purchasing functions. This paper analyzes the key health care purchasing functions in Uganda and the implications of the various purchasing arrangements for universal health coverage (UHC). The data for this paper were collected through a document review and stakeholder dialogue. The analysis was guided by the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework created by the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) and its technical partners. Uganda has a minimum health care package that targets the main causes of morbidity and mortality as well as specific vulnerable groups. However, provision of the package is patchy, largely due to inadequate domestic financing and duplication of services funded by development partners. There is selective contracting with private-sector providers. Facilities receive direct funding from both the government budget and development partners. Unlike government-budget funding, payment from output-based donor-funded projects and performance-based financing (PBF) projects is linked to service quality and has specified conditions for use. Specification of UHC targets is still nascent and evolving in Uganda. Expansion of service coverage in Uganda can be achieved through enhanced resource pooling and harmonization of government and donor priorities. Greater provider autonomy, better work planning, direct facility funding, and provision of flexible funds to service providers are essential elements in the delivery of high-quality services that meet local needs and Uganda's UHC aspirations.

Strategic Health Purchasing in Nigeria: Investigating Governance and Institutional Capacities within Federal Tax-Funded Health Schemes and the Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme.

For Nigeria to make progress on its commitment to universal health coverage, additional public funding will be required. But more resources alone will not be enough. Government health spending must be more efficient and effective, through more strategic purchasing-a critical policy tool. Studies on health purchasing in Nigeria's health financing schemes are limited, however. This study examines the purchasing arrangements in schemes funded by the federal budget and in the Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme (FSSHIP) within the National Health Insurance Scheme. We adopted a qualitative, descriptive case-study approach and collected data through document reviews and key informant interviews based on the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework. Our analysis used a thematic framework approach. Our findings reveal that legal frameworks and governance structures for strategic purchasing are in place for both schemes. Steps toward strategic purchasing are more advanced in FSSHIP, particularly in the design of benefit packages, accreditation and monitoring of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and providers, and provider payment mechanisms. The limited share of health funding flowing through these mechanisms, and further fragmentation of that funding, impede strategic purchasing. Strategic purchasing is also hampered by weak regulation and monitoring of providers and purchasers, delays in provider payment, and corrupt practices by HMOs. Improving strategic purchasing in Nigeria will require a concerted effort to reduce fragmentation of health spending, significant investment in human resources, technical know-how, and information systems of purchasing institutions, and actions to improve the accountability of all actors in the system.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Strategic Health Purchasing for Universal Health Coverage in Rwanda.

In the context of scarce resources and increasing health care costs, strategic purchasing is viewed as a key mechanism to spur countries' progress toward universal health coverage (UHC), by using limited resources more effectively. We applied the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework to examine the health purchasing arrangements in three health financing schemes in Rwanda-the Community Based Health Insurance (CBHI) scheme, the Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB) medical scheme, and performance-based financing (PBF). Data were collected from secondary and primary sources between September 2020 and March 2021.The objective of the study was to identify areas of progress in strategic purchasing that can be built on, and to identify areas of overlap, duplication, or conflict that limit progress in strategic purchasing to advance UHC goals. This study found that Rwanda has made progress in many areas of strategic purchasing and has a strong foundation for building further. However, some overlaps and duplication of functions weaken the power of purchasers to improve resource allocation, incentives for providers, and accountability. In addition, some of the policies within the purchasing functions could be made more strategic. In particular, open-ended fee-for-service payment in the CBHI scheme not only threatens the scheme's financial sustainability but also imposes a high administrative burden. Better alignment and integration of contracting, incentives, and information system design to provide timely and relevant information for purchasing decisions would contribute to more strategic health purchasing and ensure that Rwanda's health sector achievements are sustained and expanded.

The Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework: A Practical Approach to Describing, Assessing, and Improving Strategic Purchasing for Universal Health Coverage.

Strategic purchasing of high-priority services is a critical part of effective spending to advance UHC goals. Available conceptual frameworks for strategic purchasing have facilitated high-level advocacy and policy dialogue, and they have framed research and analytical work to describe and understand countries' purchasing arrangements. What has been missing is a framework and approach that combines the conceptual framing of strategic purchasing with practical guidance to describe and assess purchasing in sufficient detail to inform policy.This paper presents a practical framework and approach to tracking progress in purchasing: the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework. Co-created by a group of health financing researchers and academics through the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC), it builds on existing frameworks and focuses on the core purchasing functions of benefits specification, contracting arrangements, provider payment, and performance monitoring. It incorporates factors that can either strengthen or weaken the power of purchasers to directly influence resource allocation and provider behavior. The paper also proposes a set of evidence-based benchmarks that country stakeholders can use to assess where their health system is on the continuum from passive to strategic purchasing and to identify steps to make purchasing more strategic.Application of the framework has shown the value of mapping purchasing functions across all health financing arrangements to identify where strategic purchasing progress is more advanced and where it may be lacking. It has helped countries identify challenges-such as fragmentation and duplication of purchasing functions across health financing arrangements-and prioritize policy actions.

Why Is Strategic Purchasing Critical for Universal Health Coverage in Sub-Saharan Africa?

To make progress toward universal health coverage (UHC), most countries need to commit more public resources to health. However, countries can also make progress by using available resources more effectively. Health purchasing, one of the health financing functions of health systems, is the transfer of pooled funds to health providers to deliver covered services. Purchasers can be either passive or strategic in how they transfer these funds. Strategic purchasing is deliberately directing health funds to priority populations, interventions, and services, and actively creating incentives so funds are used by providers equitably and aligned with population health needs. Strategic purchasing is particularly important for countries in sub-Saharan Africa because public funding for health has often not kept pace with UHC commitments. In addition, there is wide variation in progress toward UHC targets and health outcomes on the continent that does not always correlate with per capita government health spending. This paper explores the critical role strategic purchasing can play in the movement toward UHC in sub-Saharan Africa. It explores the rationale for strategic purchasing and makes the case for a more concerted effort by governments, and the partners that support them, to focus on and invest in improving strategic purchasing as part of advancing their UHC agendas. The paper also discusses the promise of strategic purchasing and the challenges of realizing this promise in sub-Saharan Africa, and it provides options for practical steps countries can take to incrementally improve strategic purchasing functions and policies over time.

Collaborative Learning to Advance Knowledge and Implementation of Strategic Health Purchasing in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Strategic purchasing means deliberately directing health funds to priority populations, interventions, and services. This is done by actively creating incentives so funding is used equitably and efficiently and is aligned with population health needs. Strategic purchasing is a complex policy area fraught with challenging technical, institutional, and political issues. Policy makers and practitioners are an important source of tacit knowledge-experiential knowledge that is context specific and gained over time. Collaborative learning, through which a group of peers jointly problem-solves and generates lessons and solutions that can be adapted to different country contexts, is an important way to advance collective understanding of how to make progress on strategic purchasing within the unique health financing systems of sub-Saharan Africa. The Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC), a resource hub hosted by AMREF Health Africa with technical support from Results for Development, is facilitating a collaborative learning agenda among 11 technical partners in 10 countries. SPARC and the technical partners are generating new insights and practical lessons to inform country policy and regional discourse on how to better use strategic purchasing to advance progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). This paper summarizes lessons and best practices from SPARC's collaborative learning approach that can benefit others who are seeking to apply a similar approach to share tacit learning on strategic purchasing and UHC.

Applying the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework: Lessons from Nine African Countries.

The Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) developed a framework for tracking strategic purchasing that uses a functional and practical approach to describe, assess, and strengthen purchasing to facilitate policy dialogue within countries. This framework was applied in nine African countries to assess their progress on strategic purchasing. This paper summarizes overarching lessons from the experiences of the nine countries. In each country, researchers populated a Microsoft Excel-based matrix using data collected through document reviews and key informant interviews conducted between September 2019 and March 2021. The matrix documented governance arrangements; core purchasing functions (benefits specification, contracting arrangements, provider payment, and performance monitoring); external factors affecting purchasing; and results attributable to the implementation of these purchasing functions. SPARC and its partners synthesized information from the country assessments to draw lessons applicable to strategic purchasing in Africa. All nine countries have fragmented health financing systems, each with distinct purchasing arrangements. Countries have made some progress in specifying a benefit package that addresses the health needs of the most vulnerable groups and entering into selective contracts with mostly private providers that specify expectations and priorities. Progress on provider payment and performance monitoring has been limited. Overall, progress on strategic purchasing has been limited in most of the countries and has not led to large-scale health system improvements because of the persistence of out-of-pocket payments as the main source of health financing and the high degree of fragmentation, which limits purchasing power to allocate resources and incentivize providers to improve productivity and quality of care.

Supporting strategic health purchasing: a case study of annual health budgets from general tax revenue and social health insurance in Abia state, Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Tracking general trends in strategic purchasing of health financing mechanisms will highlight where country demands may exist for technical support and where progress in being made that offer opportunities for regional learning. Health services in Abia State, Nigeria are funded from general tax-revenues (GTR), and a new state social health insurance scheme (SSHIS) is proposed to overcome the failings of the GTR and expand coverage of services. This study examined purchasing functions within the GTR and the proposed SSHIS to determine if the failings in GTR have been overcome, identify factors that shape health purchasing at sub-national levels, and provide lessons for other states in Nigeria pursuing a similar intervention. METHODS: Data was collected through document review and key informant interviews. Government documents were retrieved electronically from the websites of different organizations. Hard copies of paper-only files were retrieved from relevant government agencies and departments. Interviews were conducted with seven key personnel of the State Ministry of Health and State Health Insurance Agency. Thematic analysis of data was based on a strategic health purchasing progress tracking framework which delves into the governance arrangements and information architecture needed for purchasing to work well; and the core purchasing decisions of what to buy; who to buy from; and how to buy. RESULTS: There are differences in the purchasing arrangements of the two schemes. Purchaser-provider split does not exist for the GTR, unlike in the proposed SSHIS. There are no data systems for monitoring provider performance in the GTR-funded system, unlike in the SSHIS. Whereas GTR is based on a historical budgeting system, the SSHIS proposes to use a defined benefit package, which ensures value-for-money, as the basis for resource allocation. The GTR lacks private sector engagement, provider accreditation and contracting arrangements while the SSHIS will accredit and engage private providers through selective contracting. Likewise, provider payment is not linked to performance or adherence to established standards in the GTR, whereas provider payment will be linked to performance in the SSHIS. CONCLUSIONS: The State Social Health Insurance has been designed to overcome many of the limitations of the budgetary allocation to health. This study provides insights into the enabling and constraining factors that can be used to develop interventions intended to strengthen the strategic health purchasing in the study area, and lessons for the other Nigeria states with similar characteristics and approaches.