Estimating and Comparing Health and Financial Risk Protection Outcomes in Economic Evaluations

Investing in school systems: conceptualising returns on investment across the health, education and social protection sectors

Public policies often aim to improve welfare, economic injustice and reduce inequality, particularly in the social protection, labour, health and education sectors. While these policies frequently operate in silos, the education sphere can operate as a cross-sectoral link. Schools represent a unique locus, with globally hundreds of millions of children attending class every day. A high-profile policy example is school feeding, with over 400 million students worldwide receiving meals in schools. The benefits of harmonising interventions across sectors with a common delivery platform include economies of scale. Moreover, economic evaluation frameworks commonly used to assess policies rarely account for impact across sectors besides their primary intent. For example, school meals are often evaluated for their impact on nutrition, but they also have educational benefits, including increasing attendance and learning and incorporating smallholder farmers into corporate value chains. To address these gaps, we propose the introduction of a comprehensive value-for-money framework for investments toward school systems that acknowledges the return to a common delivery platform-schools-and the multisectoral returns (eg, education, health and nutrition, labour, social protection) emerging from the rollout of school-based programmes. Directly building on benefit-cost analysis methods, this framework could help identify interventions that yield the highest gains in human capital per budget expenditure, with direct implications for finance ministries. Given the detrimental impact of COVID-19 on schoolchildren and human capital, it is urgent to build back stronger and more sustainable welfare systems.

Supporting a review of the benefits package of the National Health Insurance Scheme in Ghana

BACKGROUND

Although Ghana is lauded for its National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), concerns exist about the scheme's functioning and sustainability. An often-cited issue-contributing to the scheme's decreasing membership, long-standing financial deficit, and frequent out-of-pocket payments among members-is the large benefits package (BP). While, on paper, the BP covers over 95% of the conditions occurring in Ghana, its design was not informed by any budget analysis, nor any systematic prioritization of interventions. This paper aims to provide evidence-based input into ongoing discussions regarding a review of the NHIS benefits package.

METHODS

An existing analytic framework is used to calculate net health benefit (NHB) for a range of interventions in order to assess their cost-effectiveness and enable the prioritization of 'best buys'. The framework is expanded upon by incorporating concerns for financial protection, and practical feasibility, as well as the political economy challenges of disinvesting in currently funded activities. Five different options for the benefits package, each based on policy discourse in Ghana's health sector, are presented and evaluated.

RESULTS

Implementing all interventions for which data was available to 100% of the population in need was estimated to cost GH₵4323 million (US$994 million), while the available NHIS budget was only GH₵970 million (US$223 million). Options for the benefits package that focussed on cost-effectiveness and primary care provision achieved the best health outcomes, while options reflecting the status quo and allowing for co-payments included a higher number of healthcare interventions. Apart from the package option focussing on primary care, all packages were faced with physician shortages.

CONCLUSIONS

Current funding to the NHIS is insufficient to provide the historical benefits package, which promises to cover over 95% of disease conditions occurring in Ghana, to the total population. Shifting the NHIS focus from intervention coverage to population coverage is likely to lead to better health outcomes. A primary care package may be most feasible in the short-term, though additional physicians should be trained to provide higher-level care that is highly cost-effective, such as emergency neonatal care.