Search

Background: The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) was launched in Ghana in 2003 with the main objective of increasing utilisation to healthcare by making healthcare more affordable. Previous studies on the NHIS have repeatedly highlighted that cost of premiums is one of the major barriers for enrollment. However, despite introducing premium exemptions for pregnant women, older people, children and indigents, many Ghanaians are still not active members of the NHIS. In this paper we investigate why there is limited success of the NHIS in improving access to healthcare in Ghana and whether social exclusion could be one of the limiting barriers. The study explores this by looking at the Social, Political, Economic and Cultural (SPEC) dimensions of social exclusion.Methods: Using logistic regression, the study investigates the determinants of health service utilisation using SPEC variables including other variables. Data was collected from 4050 representative households in five districts in Ghana covering the 3 ecological zones (coastal, forest and savannah) in Ghana.Results: Among 16,200 individuals who responded to the survey, 54 % were insured. Out of the 1349 who sought health care, 64 % were insured and 65 % of them had basic education and 60 % were women. The results from the logistic regressions show health insurance status, education and gender to be the three main determinants of health care utilisation. Overall, a large proportion of the insured who reported ill, sought care from formal health care providers compared to those who had never insured in the scheme.Conclusion: The paper demonstrates that the NHIS presents a workable policy tool for increasing access to healthcare through an emphasis on social health protection. However, affordability is not the only barrier for access to health services. Geographical, social, cultural, informational, political, and other barriers also come into play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Small private providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are well positioned to fill gaps in services to low-income populations using Social Health Insurance (SHI) schemes. However, we know little about the practical challenges both private providers and patients face in the context of SHI that may ultimately limit access to quality services for low-income populations. In this paper, we pull together data collected from private providers, patients, and SHI officials in Kenya and Ghana to answer the question: does participation in an SHI scheme affect private providers' ability to serve poorer patient populations with quality health services? Methods: In-depth interviews were held with 204 providers over three rounds of data collection (2013, 2015, 2017) in Kenya and Ghana. We also conducted client exit interviews in 2013 and 2017 for a total of 106 patient interviews. Ten focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in Kenya and Ghana respectively in 2013 for a total of 171 FGD participants. A total of 13 in-depth interviews also were conducted with officials from the Ghana National Health Insurance Agency (NHIA) and the Kenya National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) across four rounds of data collection (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017). Provider interviews covered reasons for (non) enrollment in the health insurance system, experiences with the accreditation process, and benefits and challenges with the system. Client exit interviews covered provider choice, clinic experience, and SHI experience. FGDs covered the local healthcare landscape. Interviews with SHI officials covered officials' experiences working with private providers, and the opportunities and challenges they faced both accrediting providers and enrolling members. Transcripts were coded in Atlas.ti using an open coding approach and analyzed thematically. Results: Private providers and patients agreed that SHI schemes are beneficial for reducing out-of-pocket costs to patients and many providers felt they had to become SHI-accredited in order to keep their facilities open. The SHI officials in both countries corroborated these sentiments. However, due to misunderstanding of the system providers tended to charge clients for services they felt were above and beyond reimbursable expenses. Services were sometimes limited as well. Significant delays in SHI reimbursement in Ghana exacerbated these problems and compromised providers' abilities to cover basic expenses without charging patients. While patients recognized the potential benefits of SHI coverage and many sought it out, a number of patients reported allowing their enrollment to lapse for cost reasons or because they felt the coverage was useless when they were still asked to pay for services out-of-pocket at the health facility. Conclusions: Our data point to several major barriers to SHI access and effectiveness for low-income populations in Ghana and in Kenya, in addition to opportunities to better engage private providers to serve these populations. We recommend using fee-for-service payments based on Diagnosis Related Group rather than a capitation payment system, as well as building more monitoring and accountability mechanisms into the SHI systems in order to reduce requests for informal out-of-pocket payments from patients while also ensuring quality of care. However, particularly in Ghana, these reforms should be accompanied by financial reform within the SHI system so that small private providers can be adequately funded through government financing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ghana introduced capitation payment method in 2012 but was faced with resistance for its perceived poor quality of care. This paper assesses National Health Insurance Scheme subscribers and care providers’ perception of quality of care under the capitation payment method. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey of subscribers and care providers perception of quality of care in three administrative regions of Ghana using a 5-point Likert scale for the assessment based on a set of quality of care measures. We performed descriptive analysis to determine average perception of quality of care scores for each of the measures used. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were also performed to examine relationships between respondent’s characteristics and their perception of quality of care. Results: In general, subscribers expressed positive perception about the quality of care though subscribers in Ashanti were less positive compared to those in the Central region. A chi-square analysis, however, showed significant differences in subscribers’ perception of quality of care by occupation (p = 0.002), region (p = 0.007) length of NHIS membership (p = 0.006), and age (p = 0.014). Multivariate logistic regression analysis also showed that different factors, other than region of residence, were significantly associated with perceived good quality of care. Analysis of health care providers’ responses also showed significant differences in their perception of quality of care by region (p = 0.001). Multivariate logistic model showed that health care providers in the Volta region (OR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.03–0.58) were significantly less likely to perceive quality of care as good compared to those in the Ashanti region. Conclusion: Subscribers and care providers across the three regions have relatively good perception of the quality of health care in general though subscribers in Ashanti were less positive than those in the Central region. It is, therefore, plausible that capitation payment may have influenced the relatively low perception of quality of care in the Ashanti region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]