The inclusion of diagnostics in national health insurance schemes in Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines and Viet Nam.

The Lancet Commission on Diagnostics highlighted a huge gap in access to diagnostic testing even for basic tests, particularly at the primary care level, and emphasised the need for countries to include diagnostics as part of their universal health coverage benefits packages. Despite the poor state of diagnostic-related services in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), little is known about the extent to which diagnostics are included in the health benefit packages. We conducted an analysis of seven Asian LMICs-Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Viet Nam-to understand this issue. We conducted a targeted review of relevant literature and applied a health financing framework to analyse the benefit packages available in each government-sponsored scheme. We found considerable heterogeneity in country approaches to diagnostics. Of the seven countries, only India has developed a national essential diagnostics list. No country presented a clear policy rationale on the inclusion of diagnostics in their scheme and the level of detail on the specific diagnostics which are covered under the schemes was also generally lacking. Government-sponsored insurance expansion in the eligible populations has reduced the out-of-pocket health payment burden in many of the countries but overall, there is a lack of access, availability and affordability for diagnostic-related services.

The role of the private sector in delivering essential packages of health services: lessons from country experiences.

Many countries are adopting essential packages of health services (EPHS) to implement universal health coverage (UHC), which are mostly financed and delivered by the public sector, while the potential role of the private health sector (PHS) remains untapped. Currently, many low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) have devised EPHS; however, guidance on translating these packages into quality, accessible and affordable services is limited. This paper explores the role of PHS in achieving UHC, identifies key concerns and presents the experience of the Diseases Control Priorities 3 Country Translation project in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar. There are key challenges to engagement of the PHS, which include the complexity and heterogeneity of private providers, their operation in isolation of the health system, limitations of population coverage and equity when left to PHS's own choices, and higher overall cost of care for privately delivered services. Irrespective of the strategies employed to involve the PHS in delivering EPHS, it is necessary to identify private providers in terms of their characteristics and contribution, and their response to regulatory tools and incentives. Strategies for regulating private providers include better statutory control to prevent unlicensed practice, self-regulation by professional bodies to maintain standards of practice and accreditation of large private hospitals and chains. Potentially, purchasing delivery of essential services by engaging private providers can be an effective 'regulatory approach' to modify provider behaviour. Despite existing experience, more research is needed to better explore and operationalise the role of PHS in implementing EPHS in LLMICs.