[Negotiation of a heath policy controversy: application of an indirect dialogue approach to performance-based financing in sub-Saharan Africa]. / Arbitrage d’une controverse de politique de santé : application d’une démarche délibérative au Financement basé sur la Performance en Afrique subsaharienne.

OBJECTIVES: This article assesses the controversy around performance-based financing (PBF) and its contribution to the reform of health systems. It aims to reduce tensions between the different camps by restructuring the debate. METHODS: Our approach was to organize an indirect dialogue between critics and supporters of PBF, based on the framework developed by Norman Daniels. This analytical framework is non-partisan and uses clear and objective criteria. The interviews were carried out in two rounds (first the critics, then the supporters) and were then analyzed. Parts of answers were regrouped according to the most common sectoral themes while also highlighting major areas of disagreement. RESULTS: The interviews revealed some areas of convergence around PBF; the strategy is considered to be a complementary strategy to other strategies; such as those which aim to improving financial access to health care. The analysis also revealed disagreements based on misunderstandings of claims often ascribed to PBF, or lack of sufficient evidence, or asymmetrical information between experts. CONCLUSIONS: Several questions polarize PBF discussions. However, better structuring of convergent and divergent areas and arguments should facilitate a synthesis, at least to some extent. Experts need to adopt an objective approach with universally accepted criteria, for the benefit of all.

[The debate concerning performance-based financing in Africa South of the Sahara: analysis of the nature]. / Le débat autour du financement basé sur la performance en Afrique subsaharienne: analyse de la nature des tensions.

OBJECTIVES: Performance-based financing (PBF) is a strategy designed to link thefunding of health services to predetermined results. Payment by an independent strategic purchaser is subject to verification of effective achievement of health outcomes in terms ofquantity and quality. This article investigates the complex tensions observed in relation to performance based financing (PBF) and identifies some reasons for disagreement on this approach. METHODS: This study was essentially qualitative. Interviews were conducted with a panel of experts on PBF mobilizing their ability to reflect on the various arguments and positions concerning this financing mechanism. To enhance our analyses, we proposed a framework based on the main reasonsfor scientific or political controversies and factors involved in their emergence. Analysis of the information collected therefore consisted of combining experts verbatim reports with corresponding factors of controversies of our framework. Graphic representations of the differences were also established. RESULTS: Tensions concerning PBF are based on facts (experts' interpretation ofPBF), principles and values (around each expert's conceptual framework), balances of power between experts but also inappropriate behavior in the discussion process. Viewpoints remain isolated, each individual experience and an overview are lacking, which can interfere with decision-making and maintain the Health system reform crisis. Potential solutions to reduce these tensions are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that experts have difficulties agreeing on a theoretical priority approach to PBE. A good understanding of the nature of the tensions and an improvement in the quality of dialogue will promote a real dynamic of change and the proposal of an agenda of PBF actions.