Sensitivity analysis and methodological choices on health-related impoverishment estimates in Cambodia, 2009-17.

The measurement of health expenditure-related impoverishment as a proxy of financial risk protection is regularly used as an indicator of progress towards universal health coverage. However, the use of this indicator is greatly sensitive to analysts' choices and data sources, making comparisons across time and countries challenging. We report the results of a sensitivity analysis of critical methodological choices in estimating health-related financial impoverishment in Cambodia from 2009 to 2017. We include the following in our analysis: the construction and data sources for consumption aggregates and out-of-pocket health estimates; the use of international and national absolute and relative poverty thresholds (defined by the share of household food consumption); time and regional price adjustment methods and index sources. Marginal changes substantially affected estimates at the national and regional levels among households. In most cases, the choice of poverty thresholds and temporal and regional deflators had a significant effect. An increase of 0.01 USD in the average daily per capita poverty line resulted in relative increases in impoverished incidences of 2.90-2.62% for 2009 and 3.06-2.95% for 2014. From 2013 onwards, estimates for impoverishment in rural areas based on median food consumption were often significantly higher than estimates using official poverty lines. The high sensitivity of the impoverishment indicator cautions against its use in assessing health-related financial hardship and protection, especially with low and absolute poverty lines. In the context of low- and middle-income countries, assessing financial hardship in relative terms by using measures such as catastrophic health expenditure, complemented with research on coping strategies and their socio-economic effects on households, may be more conducive to policymaking goals and progress towards achieving universal health coverage.

Equality in financial access to healthcare in Cambodia from 2004 to 2014.

Since the end of its internal conflict in 1998, Cambodia has experienced tremendous developments in the social, economic and health sectors, with the government embarking on substantial reforms in health financing. Health equity funds that have improved access to public health services for poor people have gradually been extended to the entire country. Using the World Health Organization's methods for the analysis of healthcare expenditure and household survey data from the 2004, 2009 and 2014 Cambodian Socio-Economic Survey, we assessed trends in reported illness, utilization of healthcare services and associated financial burden on households. The impact of out-of-pocket expenditures for health on catastrophic health expenditures, poverty headcount and depth over the same 10-year period are presented, disaggregated by consumption quintile and place of residence (rural, urban and capital). At the aggregated national level, evolution of these indicators was very positive and correlates with a substantial increase in the capacity-to-pay of households, which reduced the average financial burden on households. However, over time inequalities grew between rural and urban areas. By 2014, the national incidence of catastrophic health expenditure was 4.9%, but four times more likely among rural households than their peers in the capital. For rural households with members seeking medical care, catastrophic health expenditure incidence was 12.3%. The impoverishment rate due to health spending among the lowest consumption quintile was 15.3%; the highest rate in this analysis. These findings suggest that economic and health sector developments have indeed benefited many Cambodian people. However, these gains mainly benefited urban residents; especially those in the capital city. We argue that more resources should be allocated to rural health services to address inequalities and healthcare-related financial hardship, which traps vulnerable people into poverty.

Making free public healthcare attractive: optimizing health equity funds in Cambodia.

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of user fees in Cambodia, Health Equity Funds (HEF) were developed to enable poor people access to public health services by paying public health providers on their behalf, including non-medical costs for hospitalised beneficiaries (HEFB). The national scheme covers 3.1 million pre-identified HEFB. Uptake of benefits, however, has been mixed and a substantial proportion of poor people still initiate care at private facilities where they incur considerable out-of-pocket costs. We examine the benefits of additional interventions compared to existing stand-alone HEF scenarios in stimulating care seeking at public health facilities among eligible poor people. METHODS: We report on three configurations of HEF and their ability to attract HEFB to initiate care at public health facilities and their degree of financial risk protection: HEF covering only hospital services (HoHEF), HEF covering health centre and hospital services (CHEF), and Integrated Social Health Protection Scheme (iSHPS) that allowed non-HEFB community members to enrol in HEF. The iSHPS also used vouchers for selected health services, pay-for-performance for quantity and quality of care, and interventions aimed at increasing health providers' degree of accountability. A cross sectional survey collected information from 1636 matched HEFB households in two health districts with iSHPS and two other health districts without iSHPS. Respondents were stratified according to the three HEF configurations for the descriptive analysis. RESULTS: The findings indicated that the proportion of HEFB who sought care first from public health providers in iSHPS areas was 55.7%, significantly higher than the 39.5% in the areas having HEF with health centres (CHEF) and 13.4% in the areas having HEF with hospital services only (HoHEF). The overall costs (out-of-pocket and transport) associated with the illness episode were lowest for cases residing within iSHPS sites, US$10.4, and highest in areas where health centres were not included in the package (HoHEF), US$20.7. Such costs were US$19.5 at HEF with health centres (CHEF). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that HEF encompassing health centre and hospital services and complemented by additional interventions are better than stand-alone HEF in attracting sick HEFB to public health facilities and lowering out-of-pocket expenses associated with healthcare seeking.

Financial access to health care for older people in Cambodia: 10-year trends (2004-14) and determinants of catastrophic health expenses.

BACKGROUND: Older people make up an increasing proportion of the population in low- and middle-income countries. This brings a number of challenges, as their health needs are greater than, and different from, those of younger people. In general, these health systems are not geared to address their needs, and traditional support systems tend to erode, potentially causing financial hardship when accessing health care. This paper provides an overview of older Cambodians' financial access to health care over time, using nationally representative data to enable the formulation of appropriate responses. METHODS: Using data from three nationally representative household surveys from 2004, 2009 and 2014, we assess key indicators of financial access to health care for households with older people (aged 60 years or older), and compare these with households without older members. For 2014 data, the determinants of catastrophic health expenses at the 10 and 40 % threshold were determined for older people. Data was stratified by age and place of residence (urban/rural), and analysed using Stata statistical software. Sample weights were calibrated to reflect accurate population composition at the time of the survey. Monetary values for 2004 and 2009 were transformed into 2014 values using annual inflation rate figures. RESULTS: Care-seeking when sick among older people increased considerably from 2004 to 2014, irrespective of gender or place of residence. There were positive trends in the incidence of catastrophic and impoverishing healthcare expenses over the studied time periods. This was also the case for indebtedness. Rural households with older people were considerable more likely to suffer financial hardship due to health-related expenses than their urban equivalents. In 2014, older people spent 50 % more per month on health care than younger people. Determinants of catastrophic health expenditures among households with older people were residing in a rural area, and having a household member with an illness, especially a non-communicable disease. CONCLUSION: In order to make health care more equitable for older people, efforts should be directed to rural areas. Interventions should include improving management of non-communicable diseases at the primary care level, together with a reconfiguration of social health protection schemes to increase the inclusion of older people.

General budget support: has it benefited the health sector?

There has been recent controversy about whether aid directed specifically to health has caused recipient governments to reallocate their own funds to non-health areas. At the same time, general budget support (GBS) has been increasing. GBS allows governments to set their own priorities, but little is known about how these additional resources are subsequently used. This paper uses cross-country panel data to assess the impact of GBS programmes on health spending in low-income and middle-income countries, using dynamic panel techniques to estimate unbiased coefficients in the presence of serial correlation. We found no clear evidence that GBS had any impact, positive or negative, on government health spending derived from domestic sources. GBS also had no observed impact on total government health spending from all sources (external as well as domestic). In contrast, health-specific aid was associated with a decline in health expenditures from domestic sources, but there was not a full substitution effect. That is, despite this observed fungibility, health-specific aid still increases total government health spending from all sources. Finally, increases in total government expenditure led to substantial increases in domestic government health expenditures.

Paris on the Mekong: using the aid effectiveness agenda to support human resources for health in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the potential of aid effectiveness to positively influence human resources for health in developing countries, based on research carried out in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). Efforts to make aid more effective--as articulated in the 2005 Paris Declaration and recently reiterated in the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action--are becoming an increasingly prominent part of the development agenda. A common criticism, though, is that these discussions have limited impact at sector level. Human resources for health are characterized by a rich and complex network of interactions and influences--both across government and the donor community. This complexity provides a good prism through which to assess the potential of the aid effectiveness agenda to support health development and, conversely, possibilities to extend the impact of aid-effectiveness approaches to sector level. METHODS: The research adopted a case study approach using mixed research methods. It draws on a quantitative analysis of human resources for health in the Lao People's Democratic Republic, supplementing this with a documentary and policy analysis. Qualitative methods, including key informant interviews and observation, were also used. RESULTS: The research revealed a number pathways through which aid effectiveness is promoting an integrated, holistic response to a range of human resources for health challenges, and has identified further opportunities for stronger linkages. The pathways include: (1) efforts to improve governance and accountability, which are often central to the aid effectiveness agenda, and can be used as an entry point for reforming workforce planning and regulation; (2) financial management reforms, typically linked to provision of budget support, that open the way for greater transparency and better management of health monies and, ultimately, higher salaries and revenues for health facilities; (3) commitments to harmonization that can be used to improve coherence of donor support in areas such as salary supplementation, training and health information management. CONCLUSION: If these opportunities are to be fully exploited, a number of constraints will need to be overcome: limited awareness of the aid effectiveness agenda beyond a core group in government; a perception that this is a donor-led agenda; and different views among partners as to the optimal pace of aid management reforms. In conclusion, we recommend strategic engagement of health stakeholders in the aid effectiveness agenda as one means of strengthening the health workforce.