Fitting Health Financing Reforms to Context: Examining the Evolution of Results-Based Financing Models and the Slow National Scale-Up in Uganda (2003-2015)

Comparative effectiveness of financing models in development assistance for health and the role of results-based funding approaches: a scoping review

Over the past three decades, there has been an unprecedented growth in development assistance for health through different financing models, ranging from donations to results-based approaches, to improve health in low- and middle-income countries. Since then, the global burden of disease has started to shift. However, it is still not entirely clear what the comparative effect of the different financing models is. To assess the effect of these financing models on various healthcare targets, we systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed and gray literature. We identified 19 studies and found that results-based financing approaches have an overall positive impact on institutional delivery rates and numbers of healthcare facility visits, though this impact varies greatly by context.Donors might be better served by providing a results-based financing scheme combining demand and supply side health-related schemes. It is essential to include rigorous monitoring and evaluation strategies when designing financing models.

Exploring the roles of players in strategic purchasing for healthcare in Africa-a scoping review

Following the World Health Organization (WHO) guidance on strategic purchasing in 2000, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are trying to shift from passive purchasing (using fixed budgets) to strategic purchasing of healthcare which ties reimbursement to outcomes. However, there is limited evidence on strategic purchasing in Africa. We conducted a scoping literature review aimed at summarizing the roles played by governments, purchasers and providers in relation to citizens/population in strategic purchasing in Africa. The review searched for scientific journal articles that contained data on strategic purchasing collected from Africa. The literature search identified 957 articles of which 80 matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The study revealed that in some countries strategic purchasing has been used as a tool for healthcare reforms or for strengthening systems that were not functional under fixed budgets. However, there was some evidence of a lack of government commitment in taking leading roles and funding strategic purchasing. Further, in some countries the laws need to be revised to accommodate new arrangements that were not part of fixed budgets. The review also established that there were some obstacles within the public health systems that deterred purchasers from promoting efficiency among providers and that prevented providers from having full autonomy in decision making. As African countries strive to shift from passive to strategic purchasing of healthcare, there is need for full government commitment on strategic purchasing. There is need to further revise appropriate legal frameworks to support strategic purchasing, conduct assessments of the healthcare systems before designing strategic purchasing schemes and to sensitize the providers and citizens on their roles and entitlements respectively.

Strategic Purchasing Arrangements in Uganda and Their Implications for Universal Health Coverage

Several purchasing arrangements coexist in Uganda, creating opportunities for synergy but also leading to conflicting incentives and inefficiencies in resource allocation and purchasing functions. This paper analyzes the key health care purchasing functions in Uganda and the implications of the various purchasing arrangements for universal health coverage (UHC). The data for this paper were collected through a document review and stakeholder dialogue. The analysis was guided by the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework created by the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) and its technical partners. Uganda has a minimum health care package that targets the main causes of morbidity and mortality as well as specific vulnerable groups. However, provision of the package is patchy, largely due to inadequate domestic financing and duplication of services funded by development partners. There is selective contracting with private-sector providers. Facilities receive direct funding from both the government budget and development partners. Unlike government-budget funding, payment from output-based donor-funded projects and performance-based financing (PBF) projects is linked to service quality and has specified conditions for use. Specification of UHC targets is still nascent and evolving in Uganda. Expansion of service coverage in Uganda can be achieved through enhanced resource pooling and harmonization of government and donor priorities. Greater provider autonomy, better work planning, direct facility funding, and provision of flexible funds to service providers are essential elements in the delivery of high-quality services that meet local needs and Uganda's UHC aspirations.

Momentum for policy change: alternative explanations for the increased interest in results-based financing in Uganda

Background

Results-based financing initiatives have been implemented in many countries as stand-alone projects but with little integration into national health systems. Results-based financing became more prominent in Uganda’s health policy agenda in 2014–2015 in the context of the policy imperative to finance universal health coverage.

Objective

To explore plausible explanations for the increased policy interest in the scale-up of results-based financing in Uganda.

Methods

In this qualitative study, information was collected through key informant interviews, consultative meetings (2014 and 2015) and document reviews about agenda-setting processes. The conceptual framework for the analysis was derived from the work of Sabatier, Kingdon and Stone.

Results

Four alternative policy arguments can explain the scale-up of results-based financing in Uganda. They are: 1) external funding opportunities tied to results-based financing create incentives for adopting policies and plans; 2) increased expertise by Ministry of Health officials in the implementation of results-based financing schemes helps frame capacity accumulation arguments; 3) the national ownership argument is supported by increased desire for alignment and fit between results-based financing structures and legitimate institutions that manage the health system; and 4) the health systems argument is backed by evidence of the levers and constraints needed for sustainable performance. Shortages in medicines and workforce are key examples. Overall, the external funding argument was the most compelling.

Conclusion

The different explanations illustrate the strengths and the vulnerability of the results-based financing policy agenda in Uganda. In the short term, donor aid has been the main factor shifting the policy agenda in favour of results-based financing. The high cost of results-based financing is likely to slow implementation. If results-based financing is to find a good fit within the Ugandan health system, and other similar settings, then policy and action are needed to improve system readiness.