ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In its pursuance of universal health coverage (UHC), the government of Benin is piloting a project of mandatory social insurance for health entitled "ARCH". METHODS: We analysed budget data and ARCH documents, and conducted four observation missions in Benin between March 2018 and January 2020. Results are presented in terms of the three classical objectives of public expenditure management. RESULTS: The government of Benin faces important budgeting challenges when it comes to implementing the ARCH social insurance project: (i) the fiscal space is quite limited, there is a limited potential for new taxes and these may not benefit the ARCH funding, hence the need to prioritise fiscal resources without jeopardising other areas; (ii) the purchasing of health services should be more strategic so as to increase allocative efficiency and equity; (iii) the efficiency of the expenditure process needs to be improved, and more autonomy needs to be devoted to the operational level, so as to ensure that health facilities are reimbursed in a timely fashion in order to meet insured people's health costs, in such a way as to avoid jeopardizing the financial equilibrium of these facilities. CONCLUSION: The important budgeting challenges faced by Benin when it comes to implementing its UHC policy are also faced by many other African countries. It is important to avoid a situation in which the resources dedicated by the government to the social health insurance system are at the expense of a reduction in the financing of preventive and promotional primary healthcare services.
ABSTRACT
Senegal is firmly committed to the objective of universal health coverage (UHC). Various initiatives have been launched over the past decade to protect the Senegalese population against health hazards, but these initiatives are so far fragmented. UHC cannot be achieved without health system strengthening (HSS). Here we assess the core capacities of the Senegalese health systems to deliver UHC, and identify requirements for HSS in order to implement and facilitate progress towards UHC. Based on a critical review of existing data and documents, complemented by the authors' experience in supporting UHC policy making and implementation, we evaluate the main foundational and institutional bottlenecks relative to the six health system building blocks, together with an analysis of the demand-side of the health system, which facilitate or hamper progress towards UHC. Despite the fact that many institutions are now in place to deliver UHC, important weaknesses limit progress along the two dimensions of UHC. Substantial disparities characterise resource allocation in the health sector, and health risk protection schemes are highly fragmented. This spreads down to the rest of the health system including service delivery and consequently, impacts on health outcomes. These constraints are acknowledged by the authorities, solutions have been proposed, but these necessitate strong political will. Moreover, progress towards UHC is constrained by the difficulty to act on social determinants of health and a lack of fiscal space.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Equity seems inherent to the pursuance of universal health coverage (UHC), but it is not a natural consequence of it. We explore how the multidimensional concept of equity has been approached in key global UHC policy documents, as well as in country-level UHC policies. METHODS: We analysed a purposeful sample of UHC reports and policy documents both at global level and in two Western African countries (Benin and Senegal). We manually searched each document for its use and discussion of equity and related terms. The content was summarised and thematically analysed, in order to comprehend how these concepts were understood in the documents. We distinguished between the level at which inequity takes place and the origin or types of inequities. RESULTS: Most of the documents analysed do not define equity in the first place, and speak about "health inequities" in the broad sense, without mentioning the dimension or type of inequity considered. Some dimensions of equity are ambiguous - especially coverage and financing. Many documents assimilate equity to an overall objective or guiding principle closely associated to UHC. The concept of equity is also often linked to other concepts and values (social justice, inclusion, solidarity, human rights - but also to efficiency and sustainability). Regarding the levels of equity most often considered, access (availability, coverage, provision) is the most often quoted dimension, followed by financial protection. Regarding the types of equity considered, those most referred to are socio-economic, geographic, and gender-based disparities. In Benin and Senegal, geographic inequities are mostly pinpointed by UHC policy documents, but concrete interventions mostly target the poor. Overall, the UHC policy of both countries are quite similar in terms of their approach to equity. CONCLUSIONS: While equity is widely referred to in global and country-specific UHC policy documents, its multiple dimensions results in a rather rhetorical utilisation of the concept. Whereas equity covers various levels and types, many global UHC documents fail to define it properly and to comprehend the breadth of the concept. Consequently, perhaps, country-specific policy documents also use equity as a rhetoric principle, without sufficient consideration for concrete ways for implementation.
Subject(s)
Health Equity , Health Policy , Universal Health Insurance , Benin , Global Health , Humans , SenegalABSTRACT
Many countries rely on standard recipes for accelerating progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). With limited generalizable empirical evidence, expert confidence and consensus plays a major role in shaping country policy choices. This article presents an exploratory attempt conducted between April and September 2016 to measure confidence and consensus among a panel of global health experts in terms of the effectiveness and feasibility of a number of policy options commonly proposed for achieving UHC in low- and middle-income countries, such as fee exemptions for certain groups of people, ring-fenced domestic health budgets, and public-private partnerships. To ensure a relative homogeneity of contexts, we focused on French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa. We initially used the Delphi method to arrive at expert consensus, but since no consensus emerged after 2 rounds, we adjusted our approach to a statistical analysis of the results from our questionnaire by measuring the degree of consensus on each policy option through 100 (signifying total consensus) minus the size of the interquartile range of the individual scores. Seventeen global health experts from various backgrounds, but with at least 20 years' experience in the broad region, participated in the 2 rounds of the study. The results provide an initial "mapping" of the opinions of a group of experts and suggest interesting lessons. For the 18 policy options proposed, consensus emerged only on strengthening the supply of quality primary health care services (judged as being effective with a confidence score of 79 and consensus score of 90), and on fee exemptions for the poorest (judged as being fairly easy to implement with a confidence score of 66 and consensus score of 85). For none of the 18 common policy options was there consensus on both potential effectiveness and feasibility, with very diverging opinions concerning 5 policy options. The lack of confidence and consensus within the panel seems to reflect the lack of consistent evidence on the proposed policy options. This suggests that experts' opinions should be framed within strengthened inclusive and "evidence-informed deliberative processes" where the trade-offs along the 3 dimensions of UHC-extending the population covered against health hazards, expanding the range of services and benefits covered, and reducing out-of-pocket expenditures-can be discussed in a transparent and contextualized setting.
