Search

The issue of time horizons has received scant attention in discussions pertaining to health economic evaluations unlike discounting or translation of health outcomes into life-cycle measures (e.g. quality-adjusted life years or disability-adjusted life years). The available guidelines do not offer clear and consistent guidance for many problems addressed in health economic evaluations. In practice, variation of time horizons between studies for the same diseases is a matter of concern, as results on cost-effectiveness depend on the time horizon. Our paper contributes to establishing a consistent approach to setting time horizons across common types of health economic evaluations and mitigating potential bias where the choice of a time horizon may affect results of the evaluation. We find that available guidance is clear only for patient-focused interventions, but not in the presence of population-level effects owing to transmission of infections or other linkages. We distinguish between a policy period-over which an intervention is delivered or initiated-and an evaluation period over which the effects are measured. One important challenge in establishing a time horizon for evaluation is that, at least for infectious diseases, the state of the epidemic at the end of the policy period cannot be evaluated precisely and incorporated in the results of an economic evaluation. While longer policy periods partly mitigate this challenge, they are subject to greater uncertainty, and outcomes may not adequately reflect the cost-effectiveness of current policies because outcomes reflect an average over the policy period. Incremental analysis on interventions implemented in sub-periods of the policy period (especially at the beginning) potentially improves accuracy and helps to identify potential for improving cost-effectiveness by varying the path of implementation or the mix of interventions offered over time., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Choices on discount rates have important implications for the outcomes of economic evaluations of health interventions and policies. In global health, such evaluations typically apply a discount rate of 3% for health outcomes and costs, mirroring guidance developed for high-income countries, notably the USA. The article investigates the suitability of these guidelines for global health [i.e. with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] and seeks to identify best practice. Our analysis builds on an overview of the academic literature on discounting in health evaluations, existing academic or government-related guidelines on discounting, a review on discount rates applied in economic evaluations in global health, and cross-country macroeconomic data. The social discount rate generally applied in global health of 3% annually is inconsistent with rates of economic growth experienced outside the most advanced economies. For low- and lower-middle-income countries, a discount rate of at least 5% is more appropriate, and one around 4% for upper-middle-income countries. Alternative approaches-e.g. motivated by the returns to alternative investments or by the cost of financing-could usefully be applied, dependent on policy context. The current practise could lead to systematic bias towards over-valuing the future costs and health benefits of interventions. For health economic evaluations in global health, guidelines on discounting need to be adapted to take account of the different economic contexts of LMICs., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

In Malaysia, first-contact, primary care is provided by parallel public and private sectors, which are completely separate in organization, financing and governance. As the country considers new approaches to financing, including using public schemes to pay for private care, it is crucial to examine the quality of clinical care in the two sectors to make informed decisions on public policy. This study intends to measure and compare the quality of clinical care between public and private primary care services in Malaysia and, to the extent possible, assess quality with the developed economies that Malaysia aspires to join. We carried out a retrospective analysis of the National Medical Care Survey 2014, a nationally representative survey of doctor-patient encounters in Malaysia. We assessed clinical quality for 27 587 patient encounters using data on 66 internationally validated quality indicators. Aggregate scores were constructed, and comparisons made between the public and private sectors. Overall, patients received the recommended care just over half the time (56.5%). The public sector performed better than the private sector, especially in the treatment of acute conditions, chronic conditions and in prescribing practices. Both sectors performed poorly in the indicators that are most resource intensive, suggesting that resource constraints limit overall quality. A comparison with 2003 data from the USA, suggests that performance in Malaysia was similar to that a decade earlier in the USA for common indicators. The public sector showed better performance in clinical care than the private sector, contrary to common perceptions in Malaysia and despite providing worse consumer quality. The overall quality of outpatient clinical care in Malaysia appears comparable to other developed countries, yet there are gaps in quality, such as in the management of hypertension, which should be tackled to improve overall health outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

There is growing evidence that political economy factors are central to whether or not proposed health financing reforms are adopted, but there is little consensus about which political and institutional factors determine the fate of reform proposals. One set of scholars see the relative strength of interest groups in favour of and opposed to reform as the determining factor. An alternative literature identifies aspects of a country's political institutions-specifically the number and strength of formal 'veto gates' in the political decision-making process-as a key predictor of reform's prospects. A third group of scholars highlight path dependence and 'policy feedback' effects, stressing that the sequence in which health policies are implemented determines the set of feasible reform paths, since successive policy regimes bring into existence patterns of public opinion and interest group mobilization which can lock in the status quo. We examine these theories in the context of Malaysia, a successful health system which has experienced several instances of proposed, but ultimately blocked, health financing reforms. We argue that policy feedback effects on public opinion were the most important factor inhibiting changes to Malaysia's health financing system. Interest group opposition was a closely related factor; this opposition was particularly powerful because political leaders perceived that it had strong public support. Institutional veto gates, by contrast, played a minimal role in preventing health financing reform in Malaysia. Malaysia's dramatic early success at achieving near-universal access to public sector healthcare at low cost created public opinion resistant to any change which could threaten the status quo. We conclude by analysing the implications of these dynamics for future attempts at health financing reform in Malaysia., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Achieving UHC will require strong health systems to promote and deliver equitable and integrated healthcare services through primary healthcare (PHC). In Brazil, the Family Health Strategy (FHS) delivers PHC through the public health system. Created in 1994, the FHS covered almost 123 million individuals (63% of the Brazilian population) by 2015. The FHS has been associated with many health improvements, but gaps in coverage still remain. This article examines factors associated with the implementation and expansion of the FHS across 5419 Brazilian municipalities from 1998 to 2012. The proportion of the municipal population covered by the FHS over time was assessed using a longitudinal multilevel model for change that accounted for variables covering eight domains: economic development, healthcare supply, healthcare needs/access, availability of other sources of healthcare, political context, geographical isolation, regional characteristics and population size. Data were obtained from multiple publicly available sources. During the 15-year study period, national coverage of the FHS increased from 4.4% to 54%, with 58% of the municipalities having population coverage of 95% or more, and municipalities that had not adopted the programme decreased from 86.4% to 4.9%. The increase in FHS uptake and coverage was not homogenous across municipalities, and was positively associated with small population size, low population density, low coverage of private health insurance, low level of economic development, alignment of the political party of the Mayor and the state Governor, and availability of healthcare supply. Efforts to expand the FHS coverage will need to focus on increasing the availability of health personnel, devising financial incentives for municipalities to uptake/expand the FHS and devising new policies that encompass both private and public sectors.

Strengthening primary health care (PHC) is considered a priority for efficient and responsive health systems, but empirical evidence from low- and middle-income countries is limited. The stepwise introduction of family medicine across all 81 provinces of Turkey (a middle-income country) between 2005 and 2010, aimed at PHC strengthening, presents a natural experiment for assessing the effect of family medicine on health service utilization and user satisfaction.The effect of health system reforms, that introduced family medicine, on utilization was assessed using longitudinal, province-level data for 12 years and multivariate regression models adjusting for supply-side variables, demographics, socio-economic development and underlying yearly trends. User satisfaction with primary and secondary care services was explored using data from annual Life Satisfaction Surveys. Trends in preferred first point of contact (primary vs secondary, public vs. private), reason for choice and health services issues, were described and stratified by patient characteristics, provider type, and rural/urban settings.Between 2002 and 2013, the average number of PHC consultations increased from 1.75 to 2.83 per person per year. In multivariate models, family medicine introduction was associated with an increase of 0.37 PHC consultations per person (P < 0.001), and slower annual growth in PHC and secondary care consultations. Following family medicine introduction, the growth of PHC and secondary care consultations per person was 0.08 and 0.30, respectively, a year. PHC increased as preferred provider by 9.5% over 7 years with the reasons of proximity and service satisfaction, which increased by 14.9% and 11.8%, respectively. Reporting of poor facility hygiene, difficulty getting an appointment, poor physician behaviour and high costs of health care all declined (P < 0.001) in PHC settings, but remained higher among urban, low-income and working-age populations., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Since the early 2000s, there have been large increases in donor financing of human resources for health (HRH), yet few studies have examined their effects on health systems., Objective: To determine the scope and impact of investments in HRH by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund), the largest investor in HRH outside national governments., Methods: We used mixed research methodology to analyse budget allocations and expenditures for HRH, including training, for 138 countries receiving money from the Global Fund during funding rounds 1-7. From these aggregate figures, we then identified 27 countries with the largest funding for human resources and training and examined all HRH-related performance indicators tracked in Global Fund grant reports. We used the results of these quantitative analyses to select six countries with substantial funding and varied characteristics-representing different regions and income levels for further in-depth study: Bangladesh (South and West Asia, low income), Ethiopia (Eastern Africa, low income), Honduras (Latin America, lower-middle income), Indonesia (South and West Asia, lower-middle income), Malawi (Southern Africa, low income) and Ukraine (Eastern Europe and Central Asia, upper-middle income). We used qualitative methods to gather information in each of the six countries through 159 interviews with key informants from 83 organizations. Using comparative case-study analysis, we examined Global Fund's interactions with other donors, as well as its HRH support and co-ordination within national health systems., Results: Around US$1.4 billion (23% of total US$5.1 billion) of grant funding was allocated to HRH by the 138 Global Fund recipient countries. In funding rounds 1-7, the six countries we studied in detail were awarded a total of 47 grants amounting to US$1.2 billion and HRH budgets of US$276 million, of which approximately half were invested in disease-focused in-service and short-term training activities. Countries employed a variety of mechanisms including salary top-ups, performance incentives, extra compensation and contracting of workers for part-time work, to pay health workers using Global Fund financing. Global Fund support for training and salary support was not co-ordinated with national strategic plans and there were major deficiencies in the data collected by the Global Fund to track HRH financing and to provide meaningful assessments of health system performance., Conclusion: The narrow disease focus and lack of co-ordination with national governments call into question the efficiency of funding and sustainability of Global Fund investments in HRH and their effectiveness in strengthening recipient countries' health systems. The lessons that emerge from this analysis can be used by both the Global Fund and other donors to improve co-ordination of investments and the effectiveness of programmes in recipient countries., (Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2013; all rights reserved.)

Background: Since 2002, development assistance for health has substantially increased, especially investments for HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria control. We undertook a systematic review to assess and synthesize the existing evidence in the scientific literature on the health impacts of these investments., Methods and Findings: We systematically searched databases for peer-reviewed and grey literature, using tailored search strategies. We screened studies for study design and relevance, using predefined inclusion criteria, and selected those that enabled us to link health outcomes or impact to increased external funding. For all included studies, we recorded dataset and study characteristics, health outcomes and impacts. We analysed the data using a causal-chain framework to develop a narrative summary of the published evidence. Thirteen articles, representing 11 individual studies set in Africa and Asia reporting impacts on HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, met the inclusion criteria. Only two of these studies documented the entire causal-chain spanning from funding to programme scale-up, to outputs, outcomes and impacts. Nonetheless, overall we find a positive correlation between consecutive steps in the causal chain, suggesting that external funds for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria programmes contributed to improved health outcomes and impact., Conclusions: Despite the large number of supported programmes worldwide and despite an abundance of published studies on HIV, TB and malaria control, we identified very few eligible studies that adequately demonstrated the full process by which external funding has been translated to health impact. Most of these studies did not move beyond demonstrating statistical association, as opposed to contribution or causation. We thus recommend that funding organizations and researchers increase the emphasis on ensuring data capture along the causal pathway to demonstrate effect and contribution of external financing. The findings of these comprehensive and rigorously conducted impact evaluations should also be made publicly accessible., (Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2013; all rights reserved.)

Shortages, geographic imbalances and poor performance of health workers pose major challenges for improving health service delivery in developing countries. In response, multilateral agencies have increasingly recognized the need to invest in human resources for health (HRH) to assist countries in achieving their health system goals. In this paper we analyse the HRH-related activities of three agencies: the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI); the Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (the Global Fund); and the World Bank. First, we reviewed the type of HRH-related activities that are eligible for financing within each agency. Second, we reviewed the HRH-related activities that each agency is actually financing. Third, we reviewed the literature to understand the impact that GAVI, Global Fund and World Bank investments in HRH have had on the health workforce in developing countries. Our analysis found that by far the most common activity supported across all agencies is short-term, in-service training. There is relatively little investment in expanding pre-service training capacity, despite large health worker shortages in developing countries. We also found that the majority of GAVI and the Global Fund grants finance health worker remuneration, largely through supplemental allowances, with little information available on how payment rates are determined, how the potential negative consequences are mitigated, and how payments are to be sustained at the end of the grant period. Based on the analysis, we argue there is an opportunity for improved co-ordination between the three agencies at the country level in supporting HRH-related activities. Existing initiatives, such as the International Health Partnership and the Health Systems Funding Platform, could present viable and timely vehicles for the three agencies to implement this improved co-ordination.

While reaching consensus on future plans to address current global health challenges is far from easy, there is broad agreement that reductionist approaches that suggest a limited set of targeted interventions to improve health around the world are inadequate. We argue that a comprehensive systems perspective should guide health practice, education, research and policy. We propose key 'systems thinking' tools and strategies that have the potential for transformational change in health systems. Three overarching themes span these tools and strategies: collaboration across disciplines, sectors and organizations; ongoing, iterative learning; and transformational leadership. The proposed tools and strategies in this paper can be applied, in varying degrees, to every organization within health systems, from families and communities to national ministries of health. While our categorization is necessarily incomplete, this initial effort will provide a valuable contribution to the health systems strengthening debate, as the need for a more systemic, rigorous perspective in health has never been greater.

Significant scale-up of donors' investments in health systems strengthening (HSS), and the increased application of harmonization mechanisms for jointly channelling donor resources in countries, necessitate the development of a common framework for tracking donors' HSS expenditures. Such a framework would make it possible to comparatively analyse donors' contributions to strengthening specific aspects of countries' health systems in multi-donor-supported HSS environments. Four pre-requisite factors are required for developing such a framework: (i) harmonization of conceptual and operational understanding of what constitutes HSS; (ii) development of a common set of criteria to define health expenditures as contributors to HSS; (iii) development of a common HSS classification system; and (iv) harmonization of HSS programmatic and financial data to allow for inter-agency comparative analyses. Building on the analysis of these aspects, the paper proposes a framework for tracking donors' investments in HSS, as a departure point for further discussions aimed at developing a commonly agreed approach. Comparative analysis of financial allocations by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the GAVI Alliance for HSS, as an illustrative example of applying the proposed framework in practice, is also presented.

The HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria pandemics pose substantial challenges globally and to health systems in the countries they affect. This demands an institutional approach that can integrate disease control programmes within health and social care systems. Whilst integration is intuitively appealing, evidence of its benefits remains uncertain and evaluation is beset by lack of a common understanding of what it involves. The aim of this paper is to better define integration in health systems relevant to communicable disease control. We conducted a critical review of published literature on concepts, definitions, and analytical and methodological approaches to integration as applied to health system responses to communicable disease. We found that integration is understood and pursued in many ways in different health systems. We identified a variety of typologies that relate to three fundamental questions associated with integration: (1) why is integration a goal (that is, what are the driving forces for integration); (2) what structures and/or functions at different levels of health system are affected by integration (or the lack of); and (3) how does integration influence interactions between health system components or stakeholders. The frameworks identified were evaluated in terms of these questions, as well as the extent to which they took account of health system characteristics, the wider contextual environment in which health systems sit, and the roles of key stakeholders. We did not find any one framework that explicitly addressed all of these three questions and therefore propose an analytical framework to help address these questions, building upon existing frameworks and extending our conceptualization of the 'how' of integration to identify a continuum of interactions that extends from no interactions, to partial integration that includes linkage and coordination, and ultimately to integration. We hope that our framework may provide a basis for future evaluations of the integration of programmes and health systems in the development of sustainable and effective responses to communicable diseases.

Attempts to comparatively analyse large-scale communicable disease control programmes have, for the most part, neglected the wider health system contexts within which the programmes lie. In addition, many evaluations of the integration of vertical disease control programmes into health systems have focused on single case studies or on a limited number of cases, or, when large numbers of cases were drawn upon, have been presented as a compendium of monographs rather than a systematic cross-national comparison. One reason for this may be that appropriate theories and tools for comparative health systems analysis are rare and difficult to formulate. In this paper we propose a conceptual framework and an analytical methodology which might be used to comparatively analyse a series of case studies that explore health systems, communicable diseases programmes and concepts of integration in order to make systematic comparisons to offer novel insights, to test new theories and to offer new hypotheses. We illustrate through a preliminary analysis how this framework can be applied to compare the impact of health systems integration and HIV and TB programmes in four countries in South-East Asia that were the subject of cases studies.

Introduction: Studies on the relevance of stronger health systems to the success of vertical programmes has focused mainly on developing countries with fragile infrastructures and limited human resources. Research in middle-income, and particularly post-Soviet, settings has been scarce. This article examines the relationships between health system characteristics and the HIV response in Russia, the country which towards the end of the Soviet period had the world's highest ratios of doctors and hospital beds to population and yet struggled to address the growing threat of HIV/AIDS., Methods: The study is based on semi-structured qualitative interviews with policy-makers and senior health care managers in two Russian regions, and a review of published and unpublished sources on health systems and HIV in Russia., Findings: We identified a number of factors associated with the system's failure to address the epidemic. We argue that these factors are not unique to HIV/AIDS. The features of the wider health system within which the HIV response was set up influenced the structure and capacities of the programme, particularly its regulatory and clinical orientation; the discrepancy between formal commitments and implementation; the focus on screening services; and problems with scaling up interventions targeting high-risk groups., Discussion: The system-programme interplay is as important in middle-income countries as in poorer settings. An advanced health care infrastructure cannot protect health systems from potential failures in the delivery of vertical programmes. The HIV response cannot be effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of the population if the broader health system does not adhere to the same principles. Strengthening HIV responses in post-Soviet societies will require improvements in their wider health systems, namely advocacy of prevention for high-risk populations, reallocation of resources from curative towards preventive services, building decision-making capacities at the local level, and developing better working environments for health care staff.

The benefits of integrating programmes that emphasize specific interventions into health systems to improve health outcomes have been widely debated. This debate has been driven by narrow binary considerations of integrated (horizontal) versus non-integrated (vertical) programmes, and characterized by polarization of views with protagonists for and against integration arguing the relative merits of each approach. The presence of both integrated and non-integrated programmes in many countries suggests benefits to each approach. While the terms 'vertical' and 'integrated' are widely used, they each describe a range of phenomena. In practice the dichotomy between vertical and horizontal is not rigid and the extent of verticality or integration varies between programmes. However, systematic analysis of the relative merits of integration in various contexts and for different interventions is complicated as there is no commonly accepted definition of 'integration'-a term loosely used to describe a variety of organizational arrangements for a range of programmes in different settings. We present an analytical framework which enables deconstruction of the term integration into multiple facets, each corresponding to a critical health system function. Our conceptual framework builds on theoretical propositions and empirical research in innovation studies, and in particular adoption and diffusion of innovations within health systems, and builds on our own earlier empirical research. It brings together the critical elements that affect adoption, diffusion and assimilation of a health intervention, and in doing so enables systematic and holistic exploration of the extent to which different interventions are integrated in varied settings and the reasons for the variation. The conceptual framework and the analytical approach we propose are intended to facilitate analysis in evaluative and formative studies of-and policies on-integration, for use in systematically comparing and contrasting health interventions in a country or in different settings to generate meaningful evidence to inform policy.

A longstanding debate on health systems organization relates to benefits of integrating health programmes that emphasize specific interventions into mainstream health systems to increase access and improve health outcomes. This debate has long been characterized by polarization of views and ideologies, with protagonists for and against integration arguing the relative merits of each approach. However, all too frequently these arguments have not been based on hard evidence. The presence of both integrated and non-integrated programmes in many countries suggests there may be benefits to either approach, but the relative merits of integration in various contexts and for different interventions have not been systematically analysed and documented. In this paper we present findings of a systematic review that explores a broad range of evidence on: (i) the extent and nature of the integration of targeted health programmes that emphasize specific interventions into critical health systems functions, (ii) how the integration or non-integration of health programmes into critical health systems functions in different contexts has influenced programme success, (iii) how contextual factors have affected the extent to which these programmes were integrated into critical health systems functions. Our analysis shows few instances where there is full integration of a health intervention or where an intervention is completely non-integrated. Instead, there exists a highly heterogeneous picture both for the nature and also for the extent of integration. Health systems combine both non-integrated and integrated interventions, but the balance of these interventions varies considerably.

We analysed costs and outcomes of tuberculosis care for patients in a traditional Russian tuberculosis control system, using 3-year retrospective cohort data. Of 1749 cases at 3 years of follow-up, 65% were cured, 11.3% (198/1749) still had 'active' or 'chronic' disease, 10.3% had transferred out of the local civilian health care system and 12.7% had died. The mean cost of managing one case over 3 years was 886 US dollars: 1,078 US dollars for bacteriologically confirmed (BK+) cases and 718 US dollars for bacteriologically unconfirmed (BK-) cases. Approximately 60% of treatment costs were incurred in the first 12 months and 40% incurred in the remaining 2 years. Around 60% of the total cost was accounted for by hospital inpatient care. The cost, treatment and outcome of BK+ and BK- cases differed substantially. The cost of treating BK+ cases was 50% higher than treating BK- cases due to higher hospitalization rates and the additional cost of managing BK+ cases that become 'chronic'. While BK+ cases accounted for 55% of total health expenditure on tuberculosis, the share of BK- cases was 45% of the total - due to hospitalization and lengthy periods of follow up. The costs of treating tuberculosis in the Russian tuberculosis control system are very high compared with other high-burden countries due to hospitalization policies and lengthy case management periods. Much of this expenditure can be avoided if the WHO-recommended DOTS strategy is implemented. In particular, the proportion of expenditure for BK- cases is surprisingly high and can be avoided as most of these patients do not need hospitalizing or lengthy periods of follow-up.