Search

Background Many countries implementing pro-poor reforms to expand subsidized health care, especially for the poor, recognize that high-quality healthcare, and not just access alone, is necessary to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. As the poor are more likely to use low quality health services, measures to improve access to health care need to emphasise quality as the cornerstone to achieving equity goals. Current methods to evaluate health systems financing equity fail to take into account measures of quality. This paper aims to provide a worked example of how to adapt a popular quantitative approach, Benefit Incidence Analysis (BIA), to incorporate a quality weighting into the computation of public subsidies for health care. Methods We used a dataset consisting of a sample of households surveyed in 10 provinces of Indonesia in early-2018. In parallel, a survey of public health facilities was conducted in the same geographical areas, and information about health facility infrastructure and basic equipment was collected. In each facility, an index of service readiness was computed as a measure of quality. Individuals who reported visiting a primary health care facility in the month before the interview were matched to their chosen facility. Standard BIA and an extended BIA that adjusts for service quality were conducted. Results Quality scores were relatively high across all facilities, with an average of 82%. Scores for basic equipment were highest, with an average score of 99% compared to essential medicines with an average score of 60%. Our findings from the quality-weighted BIA show that the distribution of subsidies for public primary health care facilities became less ‘pro-poor’ while private clinics became more ‘pro-rich’ after accounting for quality of care. Overall the distribution of subsidies became significantly pro-rich (CI = 0.037). Conclusions Routine collection of quality indicators that can be linked to individuals is needed to enable a comprehensive understanding of individuals’ pathways of care. From a policy perspective, accounting for quality of care in health financing assessment is crucial in a context where quality of care is a nationwide issue. In such a context, any health financing performance assessment is likely to be biased if quality is not accounted for.

Background For many low and middle-income countries poor quality health care is now responsible for a greater number of deaths than insufficient access to care. This has in turn raised concerns around the distribution of quality of care in LMICs: do the poor have access to lower quality health care compared to the rich? The aim of this study is to investigate the extent of inequalities in the availability of quality health services across the Indonesian health system with a particular focus on differences between care delivered in the public and private sectors. Methods Using the Indonesian Family Life Survey (wave 5, 2015), 15,877 households in 312 communities were linked with a representative sample of both public and private health facilities available in the same communities. Quality of health facilities was assessed using both a facility service readiness score and a knowledge score constructed using clinical vignettes. Ordinary least squares regression models were used to investigate the determinants of quality in public and private health facilities. Results In both sectors, inequalities in both quality scores existed between major islands. In public facilities, inequalities in readiness scores persisted between rural and urban areas, and to a lesser extent between rich and poor communities. Conclusion In order to reach the ambitious stated goal of reaching Universal Health Coverage in Indonesia, priority should be given to redressing current inequalities in the quality of care.

Substantial investments have been made in clinical social franchising to improve quality of care of private facilities in low- and middle-income countries but concerns have emerged that the benefits fail to reach poorer groups. We assessed the distribution of franchise utilization and content of care by socio-economic status (SES) in three maternal healthcare social franchises in Uganda and India (Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan). We surveyed 2179 women who had received antenatal care (ANC) and/or delivery services at franchise clinics (in Uttar Pradesh only ANC services were offered). Women were allocated to national (Uganda) or state (India) SES quintiles. Franchise users were concentrated in the higher SES quintiles in all settings. The percent in the top two quintiles was highest in Uganda (over 98% for both ANC and delivery), followed by Rajasthan (62.8% for ANC, 72.1% for delivery) and Uttar Pradesh (48.5% for ANC). The percent of clients in the lowest two quintiles was zero in Uganda, 7.1 and 3.1% for ANC and delivery, respectively, in Rajasthan and 16.3% in Uttar Pradesh. Differences in SES distribution across the programmes may reflect variation in user fees, the average SES of the national/state populations and the range of services covered. We found little variation in content of care by SES. Key factors limiting the ability of such maternal health social franchises to reach poorer groups may include the lack of suitable facilities in the poorest areas, the inability of the poorest women to afford any private sector fees and competition with free or even incentivized public sector services. Moreover, there are tensions between targeting poorer groups, and franchise objectives of improving quality and business performance and enhancing financial sustainability, meaning that middle income and poorer groups are unlikely to be reached in large numbers in the absence of additional subsidies.

Background Many low and middle income countries are implementing reforms to support Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Perhaps one of the most ambitious examples of this is Indonesia’s national health scheme known as the JKN which is designed to make health care available to its entire population of 255 million by end of 2019. If successful, the JKN will be the biggest single payer system in the world. While Indonesia has made steady progress, around a third of its population remains without cover and out of pocket payments for health are widespread even among JKN members. To help close these gaps, especially among the poor, the Indonesian government is currently implementing a set of UHC policy reforms that include the integration of remaining government insurance schemes into the JKN, expansion of provider networks, restructuring of provider payments systems, accreditation of all contracted health facilities and a range of demand side initiatives to increase insurance uptake, especially in the informal sector. This study evaluates the equity impact of this latest set of UHC reforms. Methods Using a before and after design, we will evaluate the combined effects of the national UHC reforms at baseline (early 2018) and target of JKN full implementation (end 2019) on: progressivity of the health care financing system; pro-poorness of the health care delivery system; levels of catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditure; and self-reported health outcomes. In-depth interviews with stakeholders to document the context and the process of implementing these reforms, will also be undertaken. Discussion As countries like Indonesia focus on increasing coverage, it is critically important to ensure that the poor and vulnerable - who are often the most difficult to reach – are not excluded. The results of this study will not only help track Indonesia’s progress to universalism but also reveal what the UHC-reforms mean to the poor.