Search

Development assistance is a major source of financing for health in least developed countries. However, persistent aid fragmentation has led to inefficiencies and health inequities and constrained progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Malawi is a case study for this global challenge, with 55% of total health expenditure funded by donors and fragmentation across 166 financing sources and 265 implementing partners. This often leads to poor coordination and misalignment between government priorities and donor projects. To address these challenges, the Malawi Ministry of Health (MoH) has developed and implemented an architecture of aid coordination tools and processes. Using a case study approach, we documented the iterative development, implementation and institutionalization of these tools, which was led by the MoH with technical assistance from the Clinton Health Access Initiative. We reviewed the grey literature, including relevant policy documents, planning tools and databases of government/partner funding commitments, and drew upon the authors' experiences in designing, implementing and scaling up these tools. Overall, the iterative use and revision of these tools by the Government of Malawi across the national and subnational levels, including integration with the government's public financial management system, was critical to successful uptake. The tools are used to inform government and partner resource allocation decisions, assess financing and gaps for national and district plans and inform donor grant applications. As Malawi has launched the Health Sector Strategic Plan 2023–2030, these tools are being adapted for the 'One Plan, One Budget and One Report' approach. However, while the tools are an incremental mechanism to strengthen aid alignment, success has been constrained by the larger context of power imbalances and misaligned incentives between the donor community and the Government of Malawi. Reform of the aid architecture is therefore critical to ensure that these tools achieve maximum impact in Malawi's journey towards UHC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the global health agenda, Universal Health Coverage has been displaced by the COVID-19 pandemic while disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have exposed stark gaps in quality, access, equity, and financial risk protection. These disparities highlight the importance of the core goals of Universal Health Coverage and the need for innovative approaches to working toward them. The newly codified concept of "Networks of Care" offers a promising option for implementation. The articles in this special issue present the Networks of Care lexicon and framework and demonstrate the development of leadership, responsibility, intra- and inter-facility cooperation, and dynamic cycles of quality improvement. These elements are associated with better access to services and better health outcomes, the ultimate goals of Universal Health Coverage. Increases in poverty, food insecurity, and deleterious impact on the status of women secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic add urgency to Universal Health Coverage, while the economic impact of pandemic mitigation may reduce availability of resources for years to come. The need for Universal Health Coverage and efficiency and flexibility in health spending, including the ability to contract directly, has become even more important. Countries where Universal Health Coverage efforts have yet to carry through to provision of good quality, accessible and equitable service delivery could potentially benefit from concurrent Networks of Care implementation. Documentation of Networks of Care in the context of Universal Health Coverage should be prioritized to understand how Networks of Care can be used to help realize the goals of Universal Health Coverage around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Under-five mortality estimates are increasingly used in low and middle income countries to target interventions and measure performance against global development goals. Two new methods to rapidly estimate under-5 mortality based on Summary Birth Histories (SBH) were described in a previous paper and tested with data available. This analysis tests the methods using data appropriate to each method from 5 countries that lack vital registration systems. SBH data are collected across many countries through censuses and surveys, and indirect methods often rely upon their quality to estimate mortality rates. Methods and findings: The Birth History Imputation method imputes data from a recent Full Birth History (FBH) onto the birth, death and age distribution of the SBH to produce estimates based on the resulting distribution of child mortality. DHS FBHs and MICS SBHs are used for all five countries. In the implementation, 43 of 70 estimates are within 20% of validation estimates (61%). Mean Absolute Relative Error is 17.7.%. 1 of 7 countries produces acceptable estimates. The Cohort Change method considers the differences in births and deaths between repeated Summary Birth Histories at 1 or 2-year intervals to estimate the mortality rate in that period. SBHs are taken from Brazil’s PNAD Surveys 2004–2011 and validated against IGME estimates. 2 of 10 estimates are within 10% of validation estimates. Mean absolute relative error is greater than 100%. Conclusions: Appropriate testing of these new methods demonstrates that they do not produce sufficiently good estimates based on the data available. We conclude this is due to the poor quality of most SBH data included in the study. This has wider implications for the next round of censuses and future household surveys across many low- and middle- income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most low- and middle-income countries lack fully functional civil registration systems. Measures of under-five mortality are typically derived from periodic household surveys collecting detailed information from women on births and child deaths. However, such surveys are expensive and are not appropriate for monitoring short-term changes in child mortality. We explored and tested the validity of two new analysis methods for less-expensive summary histories of births and child deaths for such monitoring in five African countries. Methods and Findings: The first method we explored uses individual-level survey data on births and child deaths to impute full birth histories from an earlier survey onto summary histories from a more recent survey. The second method uses cohort changes between two surveys in the average number of children born and the number of children dead by single year of age to estimate under-five mortality for the inter-survey period. The first method produces acceptable annual estimates of under-five mortality for two out of six applications to available data sets; the second method produced an acceptable estimate in only one of five applications, though none of the applications used ideal data sets. Conclusions: The methods we tested were not able to produce consistently good quality estimates of annual under-five mortality from summary birth history data. The key problem we identified was not with the methods themselves, but with the underlying quality of the summary birth histories. If summary birth histories are to be included in general household surveys, considerable emphasis must be placed on quality control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US public and private sectors now spend more than $3 trillion on health each year. While critical studies have examined the relationship between public spending on health and health outcomes, relatively little is known about the impact of broader public-sector spending on health. Using county-level public finance data for the period 1972-2012, we estimated the impact of local public hospital spending and nonhospital health spending on all-cause mortality in the county. Overall, a 10 percent increase in nonhospital health spending was associated with a 0.006 percent decrease in all-cause mortality one year after the initial spending. This effect was larger and significant in counties with greater proportions of racial/ethnic minorities. Our results indicate that county nonhospital health spending has health benefits that can help reduce costs and improve health outcomes in localities across the nation, though greater focus on population-oriented services may be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]