Equity lessons from a large scale private-sector healthcare intervention in Ghana and Kenya: Results for a multi-year qualitative study

Can a private sector engagement intervention that prioritizes pro-poor strategies improve healthcare access and quality? A randomized field experiment in Kenya

Private sector engagement in health reform has been suggested to help reduce healthcare inequities in sub-Saharan Africa, where populations with the most need seek the least care. We study the effects of African Health Markets for Equity (AHME), a cluster randomized controlled trial carried out in Kenya from 2012 to 2020 at 199 private health clinics. AHME included four clinic-level interventions: social health insurance, social franchising, SafeCare quality-of-care certification programme and business support. This paper evaluates whether AHME increased the capacity of private health clinics to serve poor clients while maintaining or enhancing the quality of care provided. At endline, clinics that received AHME were 14.5 percentage points (pp) more likely to be empanelled with the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), served 51% more NHIF clients and served more clients from the middle three quintiles of the wealth distribution compared to control clinics. Comparing individuals living in households near AHME treatment and control clinics (N = 8241), AHME led to a 6.7-pp increase in the probability of holding any health insurance on average. We did not find any additional effect of AHME on insurance holding among poor households. We measured quality of care using a standardized patient (SP) experiment (N = 596 SP-provider interactions) where recruited and trained SPs were randomized to present as either 'not poor', and able to afford all services provided, or 'poor' by telling the provider they could only afford ∼300 Kenyan Shillings (US$3) in fees. We found that poor SPs received lower levels of both correct and unnecessary services, and AHME did not affect this. More work must be done to ensure that clients of all wealth levels receive high-quality care.

Recognizing and mediating bureaucratic barriers: increasing access to care through small and medium-sized private providers in Kenya

Background: Equitable access to health services can be constrained in countries where private practitioners make up a large portion of primary care providers. Expanding purchasing arrangements has helped many countries integrate private providers into government-supported payment schemes, reducing financial barriers to care. However, private providers often must go through an onerous accreditation process to enroll in these schemes. The difficulties of this process are exacerbated where health policy is changed often and low-level bureaucrats must navigate these shifts at their own discretion. This paper analyzes one initiative to increase private provider accreditation with social health insurance (SHI) in Kenya by creating an intermediary between providers and “street-level” SHI bureaucrats.

Methods: This paper draws on 126 semi-structured interviews about SHI accreditation experience with private providers who were members of a franchise network in Kenya. It also draws on four focus group discussions conducted with franchise representatives who provided accreditation support to the providers and served as liaisons between the franchised providers and local SHI offices. There was a total of 20 participants across all four focus groups.

Results: In a governance environment where regulations are weak and impermanent, street-level bureaucrats often created an accreditation process that was inconsistent and opaque. Support from the implementing organizations increased communication between SHI officials and providers, which clarified rules and increased providers’ confidence in the system. The intermediaries also reduced bureaucrats’ ability to apply regulations at will and helped to standardize the accreditation process for both providers and bureaucrats.

Conclusions: We conclude that intermediary organizations can mitigate institutional weaknesses and facilitate process efficiency. However, intermediaries only have a temporary role to play where there is potential to: 1) directly increase private providers’ power in a complex regulatory system; 2) reform the system itself to be more responsive to the limitations of on-the-ground implementation.

Equity lessons from a large scale private-sector healthcare intervention in Ghana and Kenya: Results for a multi-year qualitative study

Background: The poor fall sick more frequently than the wealthy, and are less likely to seek care when they do.  Private provision in many Low- and Middle-Income Countries makes up half or more of all outpatient care, including among poor paitents.  Understanding the preferences of poor patients which impel them to choose private providers, and how 3 ^rd party payment influences these preferences, is important for policy makers considering expansion of national health insurance financing to advance Universal Health Coverage. This paper reports on the results of a qualitative evaluation of the African Health Markets for Equity intiative (AHME), a multi-year initiative in Ghana and Kenya to increase options and improve quality for outpatient services, especially for the poor.

Methods: Interviews with patients from private clinics were conducted annually between 2013 and 2018.  Field staff recruited women for exit interviews as they were leaving these clinics. In the final round of data collection (2018), interviewers screened patients for wealth quintile and selected one third of the sample (approximately 10 patients per country) that fell into the two lowest wealth quintiles (Q1 and Q2).  Transcripts were coded using Atlas.ti and coded for analysis using an inductive, thematic approach.

Results: We found four primary drivers of patient preferences for private clinics:  convenience; efficiency and predictability, perceived higher quality, and empowerment which was derived from greater choice in where to go. 

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that more options will lead to more opportunities for treatment, and decrease the percentage of those, mostly poor, who become ill and go without care of any kind.  This should be considered as a priority  by policy makers seeking to make the best use of existing national infrastructure and expertise to assure equal health for all.  In this way, private providers offer an opportunity to advance national goals.