Search

Plan Sésame (PS) is a user fee exemption policy launched in 2006 to provide free access to health services to Senegalese citizens aged 60 and over. Analysis of a large household survey evaluating PS echoes findings of other studies showing that user fee removal can be highly inequitable. 34 semi-structured interviews and 19 focus group discussions with people aged 60 and over were conducted in four regions in Senegal (Dakar, Diourbel, Matam and Tambacounda) over a period of six months during 2012. They were analysed to identify underlying causes of exclusion from/inclusion in PS and triangulated with the household survey. The results point to three steps at which exclusion occurs: (i) not being informed about PS; (ii) not perceiving a need to use health services under PS; and (iii) inability to access health services under PS, despite having the information and perceived need. We identify lay explanations for exclusion at these different steps. Some lay explanations point to social exclusion, defined as unequal power relations. For example, poor access to PS was seen to be caused by corruption, patronage, poverty, lack of social support, internalised discrimination and adverse incorporation. Other lay explanations do not point to social exclusion, for example: poor implementation; inadequate funding; high population demand; incompetent bureaucracy; and PS as a favour or moral obligation to friends or family. Within a critical realist paradigm, we interpret these lay explanations as empirical evidence for the presence of the following hidden underlying causal mechanisms: lacking capabilities; mobilisation of institutional bias; and social closure. However, social constructionist perspectives lead us to critique this paradigm by drawing attention to contested health, wellbeing and corruption discourses. These differences in interpretation lead to subsequent differential policy recommendations. This demonstrates the need for the adoption of a "multi-epistemological" perspective in studies of health inequity and social exclusion., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Continued low rates of enrolment in community-based health insurance (CBHI) suggest that strategies proposed for scaling up are unsuccessfully implemented or inadequately address underlying limitations of CBHI. One reason may be a lack of incorporation of social and political context into CBHI policy. In this study, the hypothesis is proposed that values and power relations inherent in social networks of CBHI stakeholders can explain levels of CBHI coverage. To test this, three case studies constituting Senegalese CBHI schemes were studied. Transcripts of interviews with 64 CBHI stakeholders were analysed using inductive coding. The five most important themes pertaining to social values and power relations were: voluntarism, trust, solidarity, political engagement and social movements. Analysis of these themes raises a number of policy and implementation challenges for expanding CBHI coverage. First is the need to subsidize salaries for CBHI scheme staff. Second is the need to develop more sustainable internal and external governance structures through CBHI federations. Third is ensuring that CBHI resonates with local values concerning four dimensions of solidarity (health risk, vertical equity, scale and source). Government subsidies is one of the several potential strategies to achieve this. Fourth is the need for increased transparency in national policy. Fifth is the need for CBHI scheme leaders to increase their negotiating power vis-à-vis health service providers who control the resources needed for expanding CBHI coverage, through federations and a social movement dynamic. Systematically addressing all these challenges would represent a fundamental reform of the current CBHI model promoted in Senegal and in Africa more widely; this raises issues of feasibility in practice. From a theoretical perspective, the results suggest that studying values and power relations among stakeholders in multiple case studies is a useful complement to traditional health systems analysis., (Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2014; all rights reserved.)