Reconciling devolution with health financing and public financial management: challenges and policy options for the health sector.

The interplay between devolution, health financing and public financial management processes in health-or the lack of coherence between them-can have profound implications for a country's progress towards universal health coverage. This paper explores this relationship in seven Asian and African countries (Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia and the Philippines), highlighting challenges and suggesting policy solutions. First, subnational governments rely heavily on transfers from central governments, and most are not required to allocate a minimum share of their budget to health. Central governments channelling more funds to subnational governments through conditional grants is a promising way to increase public financing for health. Second, devolution makes it difficult to pool funding across populations by fragmenting them geographically. Greater fiscal equalisation through improved revenue sharing arrangements and, where applicable, using budgetary funds to subsidise the poor in government-financed health insurance schemes could bridge the gap. Third, weak budget planning across levels could be improved by aligning budget structures, building subnational budgeting capacity and strengthening coordination across levels. Fourth, delays in central transfers and complicated procedures for approvals and disbursements stymie expenditure management at subnational levels. Simplifying processes and enhancing visibility over funding flows, including through digitalised information systems, promise to improve expenditure management and oversight in health. Fifth, subnational governments purchase services primarily through line-item budgets. Shifting to practices that link financial allocations with population health needs and facility performance, combined with reforms to grant commensurate autonomy to facilities, has the potential to enable more strategic purchasing.

Estimating the cost of achieving basic water, sanitation, hygiene, and waste management services in public health-care facilities in the 46 UN designated least-developed countries: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: An alarming number of public health-care facilities in low-income and middle-income countries lack basic water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH), and waste management services. This study estimates the costs of achieving full coverage of basic WASH and waste services in existing public health facilities in the 46 UN designated least-developed countries (LDCs). METHODS: In this modelling study, in-need facilities were quantified by combining published counts of public facilities with estimated basic WASH and waste service coverage. Country-specific per-facility capital and recurrent costs to deliver basic services were collected via survey of country WASH experts and officials between Sept 24 and Dec 24, 2020. Baseline cost estimates were modelled and discounted by 5% per year. Key assumptions were adjusted to produce lower and upper estimates, including adjusting the discount rate to 8% and 3% per year, respectively. FINDINGS: An estimated US$6·5 billion to $9·6 billion from 2021 to 2030 is needed to achieve full coverage of basic WASH and waste services in public health facilities in LDCs. Capital costs are $2·9 billion to $4·8 billion and recurrent costs are $3·6 billion to $4·8 billion over this time period. A mean of $0·24-0·40 per capita in capital investment is needed each year, and annual operations and maintenance costs are expected to increase from $0·10 in 2021 to $0·39-0·60 in 2030. Waste management accounts for the greatest share of costs, requiring $3·7 billion (46·6% of the total) in the baseline estimates, followed by $1·8 billion (23·1%) for sanitation, $1·5 billion (19·5%) for water, and $845 million (10·7%) for hygiene. Needs are greatest for non-hospital facilities ($7·4 billion [94%] of $7·9 billion) and for facilities in rural areas ($5·3 billion [68%]). INTERPRETATION: Investment will need to increase to reach full coverage of basic WASH and waste services in public health facilities. Financial needs are modest compared with current overall health and WASH spending, and better service coverage will yield substantial health benefits. To sustain services and prevent degradation and early replacement, countries will need to routinely budget for operations and maintenance of WASH and waste management assets. FUNDING: WHO (including underlying grants from the governments of Japan, the Netherlands, and the UK), World Bank (including an underlying grant from the Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership), and UNICEF. TRANSLATIONS: For the Arabic, French and Portuguese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Safely resuming neglected tropical disease control activities during COVID-19: Perspectives from Nigeria and Guinea.

Since its early spread in early 2020, the disease caused by the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused mass disruptions to health services. These have included interruptions to programs that aimed to prevent, control, and eliminate neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) released interim guidelines recommending the temporary cessation of mass drug administration (MDA), community-based surveys, and case detection, while encouraging continuation of morbidity management and vector control where possible. Over the course of the following months, national programs and implementing partners contributed to COVID-19 response efforts, while also beginning to plan for resumption of NTD control activities. To understand the challenges, opportunities, and recommendations for maximizing continuity of disease control during public health emergencies, we sought perspectives from Nigeria and Guinea on the process of restarting NTD control efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through semistructured interviews with individuals involved with NTD control at the local and national levels, we identified key themes and common perspectives between the 2 countries, as well as observations that were specific to each. Overall, interviewees stressed the challenges posed by COVID-19 interruptions, particularly with respect to delays to activities and related knock-on impacts, such as drug expiry and prolonged elimination timelines, as well as concerns related to funding. However, respondents in both countries also highlighted the benefits of a formal risk assessment approach, particularly in terms of encouraging information sharing and increasing coordination and advocacy. Recommendations included ensuring greater availability of historical data to allow better monitoring of how future emergencies affect NTD control progress; continuing to use risk assessment approaches in the future; and identifying mechanisms for sharing lessons learned and innovations between countries as a means of advancing postpandemic health systems and disease control capacity strengthening.

Did Equity of Reproductive and Maternal Health Service Coverage Increase during the MDG Era? An Analysis of Trends and Determinants across 74 Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Despite widespread gains toward the 5th Millennium Development Goal (MDG), pro-rich inequalities in reproductive health (RH) and maternal health (MH) are pervasive throughout the world. As countries enter the post-MDG era and strive toward UHC, it will be important to monitor the extent to which countries are achieving equity of RH and MH service coverage. This study explores how equity of service coverage differs across countries, and explores what policy factors are associated with a country's progress, or lack thereof, toward more equitable RH and MH service coverage. METHODS: We used RH and MH service coverage data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) for 74 countries to examine trends in equity between countries and over time from 1990 to 2014. We examined trends in both relative and absolute equity, and measured relative equity using a concentration index of coverage data grouped by wealth quintile. Through multivariate analysis we examined the relative importance of policy factors, such as political commitment to health, governance, and the level of prepayment, in determining countries' progress toward greater equity in RH and MH service coverage. RESULTS: Relative equity for the coverage of RH and MH services has continually increased across all countries over the past quarter century; however, inequities in coverage persist, in some countries more than others. Multivariate analysis shows that higher education and greater political commitment (measured as the share of government spending allocated to health) were significantly associated with higher equity of service coverage. Neither country income, i.e., GDP per capita, nor better governance were significantly associated with equity. CONCLUSION: Equity in RH and MH service coverage has improved but varies considerably across countries and over time. Even among the subset of countries that are close to achieving the MDGs, progress made on equity varies considerably across countries. Enduring disparities in access and outcomes underpin mounting support for targeted reforms within the broader context of universal health coverage (UHC).