Characterizing key misconceptions of equity in health financing for universal health coverage.

Fairness or equity in health financing is critical to ensuring universal health coverage (UHC). While equity in health financing is generally about financing health services according to ability-to-pay, misconceptions exist among policymakers, decision-makers and some researchers about what constitutes financing health services according to ability-to-pay or an equitably financed health system. This commentary characterizes three misconceptions of equitable health financing-(1) the misconception of fair contribution, (2) the pro-poor misconception and (3) the misconception of cross-subsidization. The paper also uses these misconceptions to clearly illustrate what constitutes equity in health financing, highlighting the importance of income distribution. The misconceptions come from the authors' extensive engagements with policymakers and practitioners, especially in Africa. A clear understanding of equity in health financing provides an avenue to significant progress towards UHC and improving a country's income distribution.

Reducing Financial Barriers for Households Due to COVID-19: The Case in India.

As countries all over the world grapple with containing the COVID-19 outbreak, Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) are particularly hard-pressed because on the one hand, the pandemic has created unforeseen high demand for health services which requires increased spending. On the other hand, the contagion and the public health measures taken to curb it have disrupted economies whilst creating additional spending pressures as well. This constrains the policy options available for LMICs to ensure an adequate and sustainable financing for the health sector's COVID-19 response whilst maintaining routine supply of essential health services. Despite this, as demonstrated by India, many LMICs are undertaking many reform efforts to address both the health and economic hardships caused by the pandemic. In this commentary, we describe the policy tools that one such LMIC, India, has used to enable financing for the outbreak.

Correction to: What has been the progress in addressing financial risk in Uganda? Analysis of catastrophe and impoverishment due to health payments.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

What has been the progress in addressing financial risk in Uganda? Analysis of catastrophe and impoverishment due to health payments.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) requires an assessment of progress in coverage of health services and protection of households from the impact of direct out-of-pocket payments (i.e. financial risk protection). Although Uganda has expressed aspirations for attaining UHC, out-of-pocket payments remain a major contributor to total health expenditure. The aim of this study is to monitor progress in financial risk protection in Uganda. METHODS: This study uses data from the Uganda National Household Surveys for 2005/06, 2009/10, 2012/13 and 2016/17. We measure financial risk protection using catastrophic health care payments and impoverishment indicators. Health care payments are catastrophic if they exceed a set threshold (i.e. 10 and 25%) of the total household consumption expenditure. Health payments are impoverishing if they push the household below the poverty line (the US$1.90/day and Uganda's national poverty lines). A logistic regression model is used to assess the factors associated with household financial risk. RESULTS: The results show that while progress has been made in reducing financial risk, this progress remains minimal, and there is still a risk of a reversal of this trend. We find that although catastrophic health payments at the 10% threshold decreased from 22.4% in 2005/06 to 13.8% in 2012/13, it increased to 14.2% in 2016/17. The percentage of Ugandans pushed below the national poverty line (US$1.90/day) has decreased from 5.2% in 2005/06 to 2.7% in 2016/17. The distribution of both catastrophic health payments and impoverishment varies across socio-economic status, location and residence. In addition, certain household characteristics (poverty, having a child below 5 years and an adult above 60 years) are more associated with the lack of financial risk protection. CONCLUSION: There is need for targeted interventions to reduce OOP, especially among those affected so as to increase financial risk protection. In the short-term, it is important to ensure that public health services are funded adequately to enable effective coverage with quality health care. In the medium-term, increased reliance on mandatory prepayment will reduce the burden of OOP health spending further.

Correction to: Community participation and private sector engagement are fundamental to achieving universal health coverage and health security in Africa: reflections from the second Africa health forum.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s12919-019-0170-0.].

Community participation and private sector engagement are fundamental to achieving universal health coverage and health security in Africa: reflections from the second Africa health forum.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate access to quality health care services due to weak health systems and recurrent public health emergencies are impediments to the attainment of Universal Health Coverage and health security in Africa. To discuss these challenges and deliberate on plausible solutions, the World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, in collaboration with the Government of Cabo Verde, convened the second Africa Health Forum in Praia, Cabo Verde on 26-28 March 2019, under the theme Achieving Universal Health Coverage and Health Security: The Africa We Want to See. METHODS: The Forum was conducted through technical sessions consisting of high-level, moderated panel discussions on specific themes, some of them preceded by keynote addresses. There were booth exhibitions by Member States, World Health Organization and other organizations to facilitate information exchanges. A Communiqué highlighting the recommendations of the Forum was issued during the closing ceremony . More than 750 participants attended. Relevant information from the report of the Forum and notes by the authors were extracted and synthesized into these proceedings. CONCLUSIONS: The Forum participants agreed that the role of community engagement and participation in the attainment of Universal Health Coverage, health security and ultimately the Sustainable Development Goals cannot be overemphasized. The public sector of Africa alone cannot achieve these three interrelated goals; other partners, such as the private sector, must be engaged. Technological innovations will be a key driver of the attainment of these goals; hence, there is need to harness the comparative advantages that they offer. Attainment of the three goals is also intertwined - achieving one paves the way for achieving the others. Thus, there is need for integrated public health approaches in the planning and implementation of interventions aimed at achieving them. RECOMMENDATIONS: To ensure that the recommendations of this Forum are translated into concrete actions in a sustainable manner, we call on African Ministers of Health to ensure their integration into national health sector policies and strategic documents and to provide the necessary leadership required for their implementation. We also call on partners to mainstream these recommendations into their ongoing support to World Health Organization African Member States.