What's Needed to Develop Strategic Purchasing in Healthcare? Policy Lessons from a Realist Review

An Analysis of the Social Impacts of a Health System Strengthening Program Based on Purchasing Health Services

Access to universal health coverage is a fundamental right that ensures that even the most disadvantaged receive health services without financial hardship. The Democratic Republic of Congo is among the poorest countries in the world, yet healthcare is primarily made by direct payment which renders care inaccessible for most Congolese. Between 2017 and 2021 a purchasing of health services initiative (Le Programme de Renforcement de l'Offre et Développement de l'accès aux Soins de Santé or PRO DS), was implemented in Kongo Central and Ituri with the assistance of the non-governmental organization Memisa Belgium. The program provided funding for health system strengthening that included health service delivery, workforce development, improved infrastructure, access to medicines and support for leadership and governance. This study assessed the social and health impacts of the PRO DS Memisa program using a health impact assessment focus. A documentary review was performed to ascertain relevant indicators of program effect. Supervision and management of health zones and health centers, use of health and nutritional services, the population's nutritional health, immunization levels, reproductive and maternal health, and newborn and child health were measured using a controlled longitudinal model. Positive results were found in almost all indicators across both provinces, with a mean proportion of positive effect of 60.8% for Kongo Central, and 70.8% in Ituri. Barriers to the program's success included the arrival of COVID-19, internal displacement of the population and resistance to change from the community. The measurable positive impacts from the PRO DS Memisa program reveal that an adequately funded multi-faceted health system strengthening program can improve access to healthcare in a low-income country such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Experiences of Strategic Purchasing of Healthcare in Nine Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Qualitative Review

BACKGROUND

Efforts to move towards universal health coverage (UHC) aim to rebalance health financing in ways that increase efficiency, equity, and quality. Resource constraints require a shift from passive to strategic purchasing (SP). In this paper, we report on the experiences of SP in public sector health insurance schemes in nine middle-income countries to understand what extent SP has been established, the challenges and facilitators, and how it is helping countries achieve their UHC goals.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify papers on SP. Nine countries were selected for case study analysis. We extracted data from 129 articles. We used a common framework to compare the purchasing arrangements and key features in the different schemes. The evidence was synthesised qualitatively.

RESULTS

Five countries had health technology assessment (HTA) units to research what services to buy. Most schemes had reimbursement mechanisms that enabled some degree of cost control. However, we found evidenced-based changes to the reimbursement mechanisms only in Thailand and China. All countries have some form of mechanism for accreditation of health facilities, although there was considerable variation in what is done. All countries had some strategy for monitoring claims, but they vary in complexity and the extent of implementation; three countries have implemented e-claim processing enabling a greater level of monitoring. Only four countries had independent governance structures to provide oversight. We found delayed reimbursement (six countries), failure to provide services in the benefits package (four countries), and high out-of-pocket (OOP) payments in all countries except Thailand and Indonesia, suggesting the schemes were failing their members.

CONCLUSION

We recommend investment in purchaser and research capacity and a focus on strong governance, including regular engagement between the purchaser, provider and citizens, to build trusting relationships to leverage the potential of SP more fully, and expand financial protection and progress towards UHC.

Financial risk allocation and provider incentives in hospital-insurer contracts in The Netherlands

In healthcare systems with a purchaser-provider split, contracts are an important tool to define the conditions for the provision of healthcare services. Financial risk allocation can be used in contracts as a mechanism to influence provider behavior and stimulate providers to provide efficient and high-quality care. In this paper, we provide new insights into financial risk allocation between insurers and hospitals in a changing contracting environment. We used unique nationwide data from 901 hospital-insurer contracts in The Netherlands over the years 2013, 2016, and 2018. Based on descriptive and regression analyses, we find that hospitals were exposed to more financial risk over time, although this increase was somewhat counteracted by an increasing use of risk-mitigating measures between 2016 and 2018. It is likely that this trend was heavily influenced by national cost control agreements. In addition, alternative payment models to incentivize value-based health care were rarely used and thus seemingly of lower priority, despite national policies being explicitly directed at this goal. Finally, our analysis shows that hospital and insurer market power were both negatively associated with financial risk for hospitals. This effect becomes stronger if both hospital and insurer have strong market power, which in this case may indicate a greater need to reduce (financial) uncertainties and to create more cooperative relationships.

Contracting the private health sector in Thailand's Universal Health Coverage

Private sector plays an import role in health service provision, therefore the engagement of private health facilities is important for ensuring access to health services. In Thailand, two of the three public health insurance schemes, Universal Coverage Scheme and Social Health Insurance, contract with private health facilities to fill gaps of public providers for the provision of health services under Universal Health Coverage. The National Health Security Office (NHSO) and Social Security Office (SSO), which manage the schemes respectively, have designed their own contractual agreements for private facilities. We aim to understand the current situation of contracting private health facilities within UHC of the two purchasing agencies. This qualitative descriptive case study was conducted through document review and in-depth interviews with key informants to understand how they contract private primary care facilities, service types, duration of contract, standard and quality requirement and renewal and termination of contracts. Private providers make a small contribution to the service provision in Thailand as a whole but they are important actors in Bangkok. The current approaches used by two purchasers are not adequate in engaging private sector to fill the gap of public provision in urban cities. One important reason is that large private hospitals do not find public contracts financially attractive. NHSO classifies contracts into 3 categories: main contracting units, primary care units, and referral units; while SSO only contracts main contracting units. Both allows subcontracting by the main contractors. Contractual agreements are effective in ensuring mandatory infrastructure and quality standards. Both purchasers have established technical capacities to enforce quality monitoring and financial compliance although there remains room for improvement especially on identifying fraud and taking legal actions. Contracting private healthcare facilities can fill the gap of public healthcare facilities, especially in urban settings. Purchasers need to balance the right level of incentives and accountability measures to ensure access to quality of care. In contracting private-for-profit providers, strong regulatory enforcement and auditing capacities are necessary. Further studies may explore various aspects contracting outcomes including access, equity, quality and efficiency impacts.

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.

How to become a strategic purchaser of rehabilitation services

Rehabilitative care is often overlooked and underfunded despite being a key component of universal health coverage, and now faces further neglect due to indirect impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Policy-makers can leverage strategic purchasing approaches to make the most of available funds and maximize health gains. To implement more strategic purchasing of rehabilitation, health planners must: (i) develop and prioritize evidence-based rehabilitation service packages; (ii) use fit-for-purpose contracting and provider payment mechanisms to incentivize quality and efficient service delivery; and (iii) strengthen stewardship. This paper examines these three policy priorities by analysing their associated processes, actors and resources based on country experiences. Policy-makers will likely face several obstacles in operationalizing these policy priorities, including: inadequate accountability and coordination among sectors; limited data and research; undefined and non-standardized rehabilitation services, costs and outcomes; and inadequate availability of rehabilitative care. To overcome challenges and institute optimal strategic purchasing practices for rehabilitation, we recommend that policy-makers strengthen health sector stewardship and establish a framework for multisectoral collaboration, invest in data and research and make use of available experience from high-income settings, while creating a body of evidence from low- and middle-income settings.

Does healthcare system device volume correlate with price paid for spinal implants: a cross-sectional analysis of a national purchasing database

OBJECTIVES

Amid continuously rising US healthcare costs, particularly for inpatient and surgical services, strategies to more effectively manage supply chain expenses are urgently necessary. Across industries, the 'economy of scale' principle indicates that larger purchasing volumes should correspond to lower prices due to 'bulk discounts'. Even as such advantages of scale have driven health system mergers in the USA, it is not clear whether they are being achieved, including for specialised products like surgical implants which may be more vulnerable to cost inefficiency. The objective of this observational cross-sectional study was to investigate whether purchasing volumes for spinal implants was correlated with price paid.

SETTING

USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Market data based on pricing levels for spine implants were reviewed from industry implant price databases. Filters were applied to narrow the sample to include comparable institutions based on procedural volume, patient characteristics and geographical considerations. Information on the attributes of 619 health systems representing 12 471 provider locations was derived from national databases and analytics platforms.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Institution-specific price index paid for spinal implants, normalised to the national average price point achieved.

RESULTS

A Spearman's correlation test indicated a weak relationship between purchasing volume and price index paid (ρ=-0.35, p<0.001). Multivariable linear regression adjusting for institutional characteristics including type of hospital, accountable care organisation status, payer-mix, geography, number of staffed beds, number of affiliated physicians and volume of patient throughput also did not exhibit a statistically significant relationship between purchasing volume and price index performance (p=0.085).

CONCLUSIONS

National supply chain data revealed that there was no significant relationship between purchasing volume and price paid by health systems for spinal implants. These findings suggest that factors other than purchasing or patient volume are responsible for setting prices paid by health systems to surgical vendors and/or larger healthcare systems are not negotiating in a way to consistently achieve optimal pricing.

Examining healthcare purchasing arrangements for strategic purchasing in Nigeria: a case study of the Imo state healthcare system

BACKGROUND

Strategic healthcare purchasing (SHP), as a critical function of health financing, enhances the optimal attainment of health system goals through the efficient use of financial resources. Countries committed to universal health coverage (UHC) have made progress towards strategic purchasing through relevant reforms in their healthcare financing systems. This study examined the purchasing arrangements and practices in the Imo state healthcare system to track progress towards SHP committed to UHC.

METHODS

A critical review and analysis of healthcare financing schemes in Imo state, south-eastern Nigeria, was undertaken to assess their purchasing practices based on a descriptive qualitative case study approach. Relevant documents were collected and reviewed including in-depth interviews with stakeholders. Information was collected on external factors and governance, purchasing practices and other capacities of the state's health financing schemes. The analytical framework was guided by comparing purchasing practices of the financing schemes with the ideal strategic purchasing actions (SPAs) developed by RESYST (Resilient and Responsive Health Systems), based on the three pairs of principal-agent relationships.

RESULTS

Healthcare purchasing in the state is dominated by the State Ministry of Health (SMOH) using a general tax-based and public health system, making government revenue a major source of funding and provision of healthcare services. However, purchasing of health services is passive and the stewardship role of government is significantly weak, characterized by substantial insufficient budgetary allocations, inadequate infrastructure and poor accountability. However, the health benefit package significantly reflects the needs of the population. As an integrated system, there is no purchaser-provider split. Provider selection, monitoring and payment processes do not promote quality and efficiency of service delivery. There is very limited institutional and technical capacity for SHP. However, the state recently established the Imo State Health Insurance Agency (IMSHIA), a social agency whose structure and organization support SHP functions, including benefit packages, provider selection processes, appropriate provider payment mechanisms and regulatory controls.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare purchasing in Imo state remains mostly passive, with very limited strategic purchasing arrangements. The main challenges stem from the entrenched institutional mechanism of passive purchasing in the government's health budgets that are derived from general tax revenue, lack of purchaser-provider split, and poor provider payment and performance monitoring mechanisms. The establishment of the social insurance agency represents an opportunity for boosting SHP in the state for enhanced progress towards UHC. Building capacity and awareness of the benefits of SHP among policy-makers and programme managers will improve the efficiency and equity of health purchasing in the state.

Insurance and Improving Its Strategic Purchase in Iran

As in most countries, patients, health care providers, and insurance organizations are key components of the health care system in Iran. High rates of growth and development in today's financial markets, have made the insurance industry with its unique calculations and models, a prominent player in this specialized economic sector.

SPARC the Change: What the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center Has Learned about Improving Strategic Health Purchasing in Africa

Embodied in the goals of universal health coverage (UHC) are societal norms about ethics, equity, solidarity, and social justice. As African countries work toward UHC, it is important for their governments to use all available resources, knowledge, and networks to continue to bring this goal closer to reality for their populations. The Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) was established in 2018 as a "go-to" source of Africa-based expertise in strategic health purchasing, which is a critical policy tool for making more effective use of limited funds for UHC. SPARC facilitates collaboration among governments and research partners across Africa to fill gaps in knowledge on how to make progress on strategic purchasing. The cornerstone of this work has been the development and use of the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework to garner insights from each country's efforts to make health purchasing more strategic. Application of the framework and subsequent dialogue within and between countries generated lessons on effective purchasing approaches that other countries can apply as they chart their own course to use strategic purchasing more effectively. These lessons include the need to clarify the roles of purchasing agencies, define explicit benefit packages as a precondition for other strategic purchasing functions, use contracting to set expectations, start simple with provider payment and avoid open-ended payment mechanisms, and use collaborative rather than punitive provider performance monitoring. SPARC has also facilitated learning on the "how-to" and practical steps countries can take to make progress on strategic purchasing to advance UHC.

The Landscape of Strategic Health Purchasing for Universal Health Coverage in Burkina Faso: Insights from Five Major Health Financing Schemes

Strategic health purchasing is a key strategy in Burkina Faso to spur progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). However, a comprehensive analysis of existing health financing arrangements and their purchasing functions has not been undertaken to date. This article provides an in-depth analysis of five key health financing schemes in Burkina Faso: Gratuité (a national free health care program for women and children under age 5), crédits délégués (delegated credits), crédits transférés (transfers to municipalities), community-based health insurance, and occupation-based health insurance. This study involved a document review and complementary key informant interviews using the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework developed by the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC). Data were collected using the framework's accompanying Microsoft Excel-based tool. We analyzed the data manually to examine and identify the strengths and weaknesses of governance arrangements and purchasing functions and capacities. The study provides insight into areas that are working well from a strategic purchasing perspective and, more importantly, areas that need more attention. Areas for improvement include low financial and managerial autonomy for some schemes, weak accountability measures, lack of explicit quality standards for contracting and for service delivery, budget overruns and late provider payment, provider payment that is not linked to provider performance, fragmented health information systems, and information generated is not linked to purchasing decisions. Improvements in purchasing functions are required to address shortcomings while consolidating achievements. This study will inform next steps for Burkina Faso to improve purchasing and advance progress toward UHC.

Applying the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework: Lessons from Nine African Countries

The Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC) developed a framework for tracking strategic purchasing that uses a functional and practical approach to describe, assess, and strengthen purchasing to facilitate policy dialogue within countries. This framework was applied in nine African countries to assess their progress on strategic purchasing. This paper summarizes overarching lessons from the experiences of the nine countries. In each country, researchers populated a Microsoft Excel-based matrix using data collected through document reviews and key informant interviews conducted between September 2019 and March 2021. The matrix documented governance arrangements; core purchasing functions (benefits specification, contracting arrangements, provider payment, and performance monitoring); external factors affecting purchasing; and results attributable to the implementation of these purchasing functions. SPARC and its partners synthesized information from the country assessments to draw lessons applicable to strategic purchasing in Africa. All nine countries have fragmented health financing systems, each with distinct purchasing arrangements. Countries have made some progress in specifying a benefit package that addresses the health needs of the most vulnerable groups and entering into selective contracts with mostly private providers that specify expectations and priorities. Progress on provider payment and performance monitoring has been limited. Overall, progress on strategic purchasing has been limited in most of the countries and has not led to large-scale health system improvements because of the persistence of out-of-pocket payments as the main source of health financing and the high degree of fragmentation, which limits purchasing power to allocate resources and incentivize providers to improve productivity and quality of care.

The Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework: A Practical Approach to Describing, Assessing, and Improving Strategic Purchasing for Universal Health Coverage

Strategic purchasing of high-priority services is a critical part of effective spending to advance UHC goals. Available conceptual frameworks for strategic purchasing have facilitated high-level advocacy and policy dialogue, and they have framed research and analytical work to describe and understand countries' purchasing arrangements. What has been missing is a framework and approach that combines the conceptual framing of strategic purchasing with practical guidance to describe and assess purchasing in sufficient detail to inform policy.This paper presents a practical framework and approach to tracking progress in purchasing: the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework. Co-created by a group of health financing researchers and academics through the Strategic Purchasing Africa Resource Center (SPARC), it builds on existing frameworks and focuses on the core purchasing functions of benefits specification, contracting arrangements, provider payment, and performance monitoring. It incorporates factors that can either strengthen or weaken the power of purchasers to directly influence resource allocation and provider behavior. The paper also proposes a set of evidence-based benchmarks that country stakeholders can use to assess where their health system is on the continuum from passive to strategic purchasing and to identify steps to make purchasing more strategic.Application of the framework has shown the value of mapping purchasing functions across all health financing arrangements to identify where strategic purchasing progress is more advanced and where it may be lacking. It has helped countries identify challenges-such as fragmentation and duplication of purchasing functions across health financing arrangements-and prioritize policy actions.

Why Is Strategic Purchasing Critical for Universal Health Coverage in Sub-Saharan Africa?

To make progress toward universal health coverage (UHC), most countries need to commit more public resources to health. However, countries can also make progress by using available resources more effectively. Health purchasing, one of the health financing functions of health systems, is the transfer of pooled funds to health providers to deliver covered services. Purchasers can be either passive or strategic in how they transfer these funds. Strategic purchasing is deliberately directing health funds to priority populations, interventions, and services, and actively creating incentives so funds are used by providers equitably and aligned with population health needs. Strategic purchasing is particularly important for countries in sub-Saharan Africa because public funding for health has often not kept pace with UHC commitments. In addition, there is wide variation in progress toward UHC targets and health outcomes on the continent that does not always correlate with per capita government health spending. This paper explores the critical role strategic purchasing can play in the movement toward UHC in sub-Saharan Africa. It explores the rationale for strategic purchasing and makes the case for a more concerted effort by governments, and the partners that support them, to focus on and invest in improving strategic purchasing as part of advancing their UHC agendas. The paper also discusses the promise of strategic purchasing and the challenges of realizing this promise in sub-Saharan Africa, and it provides options for practical steps countries can take to incrementally improve strategic purchasing functions and policies over time.

Has Strategic Purchasing Led to Improvements in Health Systems? A Narrative Review of Literature on Strategic Purchasing

Strategic purchasing is noted in the literature as an approach that can improve the efficiency of health spending, increase equity in access to health care services, improve the quality of health care delivery, and advance progress toward universal health coverage. However, the evidence on how strategic purchasing can achieve these improvements is sparse. This narrative review sought to address this evidence gap and provide decision makers with lessons and policy recommendations. The authors conducted a systematic review based on two research questions: 1) What is the evidence on how purchasing functions affect purchasers' leverage to improve: resource allocation, incentives, and accountability; intermediate results (allocative and technical efficiency); and health system outcomes (improvements in equity, access, quality, and financial protection)? and 2) What conditions are needed for a country to make progress on strategic purchasing and achieve health system outcomes? We used database searches to identify published literature relevant to these research questions, and we coded the themes that emerged, in line with the purchasing functions-benefits specification, contracting arrangements, provider payment, and performance monitoring-and the outcomes of interest. The extent to which strategic purchasing affects the outcomes of interest in different settings is partly influenced by how the purchasing functions are designed and implemented, the enabling environment (both economic and political), and the level of development of the country's health system and infrastructure. For strategic purchasing to provide more value, sufficient public funding and pooling to reduce fragmentation of schemes is important.

Supporting strategic health purchasing: a case study of annual health budgets from general tax revenue and social health insurance in Abia state, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Tracking general trends in strategic purchasing of health financing mechanisms will highlight where country demands may exist for technical support and where progress in being made that offer opportunities for regional learning. Health services in Abia State, Nigeria are funded from general tax-revenues (GTR), and a new state social health insurance scheme (SSHIS) is proposed to overcome the failings of the GTR and expand coverage of services. This study examined purchasing functions within the GTR and the proposed SSHIS to determine if the failings in GTR have been overcome, identify factors that shape health purchasing at sub-national levels, and provide lessons for other states in Nigeria pursuing a similar intervention.

METHODS

Data was collected through document review and key informant interviews. Government documents were retrieved electronically from the websites of different organizations. Hard copies of paper-only files were retrieved from relevant government agencies and departments. Interviews were conducted with seven key personnel of the State Ministry of Health and State Health Insurance Agency. Thematic analysis of data was based on a strategic health purchasing progress tracking framework which delves into the governance arrangements and information architecture needed for purchasing to work well; and the core purchasing decisions of what to buy; who to buy from; and how to buy.

RESULTS

There are differences in the purchasing arrangements of the two schemes. Purchaser-provider split does not exist for the GTR, unlike in the proposed SSHIS. There are no data systems for monitoring provider performance in the GTR-funded system, unlike in the SSHIS. Whereas GTR is based on a historical budgeting system, the SSHIS proposes to use a defined benefit package, which ensures value-for-money, as the basis for resource allocation. The GTR lacks private sector engagement, provider accreditation and contracting arrangements while the SSHIS will accredit and engage private providers through selective contracting. Likewise, provider payment is not linked to performance or adherence to established standards in the GTR, whereas provider payment will be linked to performance in the SSHIS.

CONCLUSIONS

The State Social Health Insurance has been designed to overcome many of the limitations of the budgetary allocation to health. This study provides insights into the enabling and constraining factors that can be used to develop interventions intended to strengthen the strategic health purchasing in the study area, and lessons for the other Nigeria states with similar characteristics and approaches.

Factors affecting health services strategic purchasing for breast cancer patients: a mixed study in Iran

Background

Inappropriate ways of health services purchasing for cancer patients can be challengeable and costly and seriously affect the access to health services and outcomes. This study aimed at Factors affecting health services strategic purchasing for breast cancer patients.

Methods

As a mixed study, this research was conducted in Iran in 2020. In the qualitative phase, 21 specialists and professionals in the field of health services purchasing were purposefully selected and interviewed. After data saturation, interviews were analyzed with the framework analysis and a structured questionnaire was made based on these analyses. 400 breast cancer patients were selected by randomized sampling and completed the questionnaire. Data were analyzed with SPSS₂₃ in p < .05.

Results

The highest mean rate of the three main categories belonged to “insurance trusteeship” (4.71 ± .35), followed by “supply management” (4.48 ± .27) and “financial performance” (4.48 ± .37). There were significantly differences between the mean rates of the main categories and the cut-off point (p < .001). In addition, “insurance trusteeship” ranked first (2.58), followed by financial performance (1.77) and supply management (1.65).

Conclusion

Of main components in health services strategic purchasing for breast cancer patients, insurance trusteeship, supply management, and financial performance ranked first to third, respectively. Therefore, healthcare policy-makers should consider the placement of insurance trusteeship and coordinate between purchasers and providers for making reform in the health system.

How do healthcare providers respond to multiple funding flows? A conceptual framework and options to align them

Provider payment methods are a key health policy lever because they influence healthcare provider behaviour and affect health system objectives, such as efficiency, equity, financial protection and quality. Previous research focused on analysing individual provider payment methods in isolation, or on the actions of individual purchasers. However, purchasers typically use a mix of provider payment methods to pay healthcare providers and most health systems are fragmented with multiple purchasers. From a health provider perspective, these different payments are experienced as multiple funding flows which together send a complex set of signals about where they should focus their effort. In this article, we argue that there is a need to expand the analysis of provider payment methods to include an analysis of the interactions of multiple funding flows and the combined effect of their incentives on the provision of healthcare services. The purpose of the article is to highlight the importance of multiple funding flows to health facilities and present a conceptual framework to guide their analysis. The framework hypothesizes that when healthcare providers receive multiple funding flows, they may find certain funding flows more favourable than others based on how these funding flows compare to each other on a range of attributes. This creates a set of incentives, and consequently, healthcare providers may alter their behaviour in three ways: resource shifting, service shifting and cost shifting. We describe these behaviours and how they may affect health system objectives. Our analysis underlines the need to align the incentives generated by multiple funding flows. To achieve this, we propose three policy strategies that relate to the governance of healthcare purchasing: reducing the fragmentation of health financing arrangements to decrease the number of multiple purchaser arrangements and funding flows; harmonizing signals from multiple funding flows; and constraining providers from responding to undesirable incentives.

Challenges of maintaining accountability in networks of health and care organisations: A study of developing Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships in the English National Health Service

The English National Health Service (NHS) constitutes a unique institutional context, which combines elements of hierarchy, markets and networks. This has always raised issues about competing forms of accountability. Recent policy has emphasised a move from quasi market competition towards collaboration in the form of new regional organisational arrangements known as Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs). We explore accountability relationships in STPs, focusing on the challenges of increasing horizontal accountability given existing vertical accountabilities, most notably to national regulators. We utilize a case study approach concentrated on three Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in urban and rural settings in England. We conducted in-person interviews with 22 managers from NHS organisations and local authorities and examined local documents to obtain information on governance and accountability structures. The fieldwork was undertaken between November 2017 and July 2018. We analysed results by considering which actors were accountable to what forums and the nature of the obligation (vertical or horizontal). We found that individual organisations still retained vertical accountabilities and were reluctant to be held accountable for the whole STP, given they were responsible for only part of the joint effort. Moreover, organisations did not feel accountable to STPs and instead highlighted vertical accountabilities upwards to their own boards and to national regulators; and downwards to the public. But while local commissioning organisations, CCGs engaged with their members and the public, STPs failed to engage adequately with the public. Nevertheless, there were indications that horizontal accountability was starting to develop. This could become complementary to vertical accountability by facilitating mutual learning and peer review to anticipate and defer regulatory intervention. While vertical accountability is necessary to provide oversight and apply sanctions, it is not sufficient and should be accompanied by horizontal accountability.

Misunderstandings and ambiguities in strategic purchasing in low- and middle-income countries

Strategic purchasing is branded as an approach that is necessary for progress towards universal health coverage. While we agree that publicly purchased health services should respond to society's needs and patient expectations, and thus generally endorse strategic purchasing, here we would like to explore two emerging concerns within current discussions in low- and middle-income countries. First, there exists a great deal of misunderstanding and conceptual unclarity, within practitioner groups, around the concept of strategic purchasing and what instruments it incorporates. Second, there is a growing trend to regularly fuse strategic purchasing into a performance-based financing (PBF) discourse in ways that increasingly blur their distinctive properties and policy orientations, while perhaps too easily obfuscating potential tensions. We believe the discourse on strategic purchasing would benefit from better conceptual clarity by dissociating and prioritising its two objectives, namely: priority should be given to needs-based allocation of resources, while rewarding performance is a subsequent concern. We argue there is a need for a more thoroughgoing conceptual and empirical re-examination of strategic purchasing's priorities, its link with PBF, as well as for a wider evidence-base on what strategic purchasing tools exist and which are most appropriate for diverse contexts.

The barriers to the full implementation of strategic purchasing and the role of health policy and decision-makers: past, current status, ethical aspects and future challenges

Healthcare systems are complex, multi-level, highly integrated organizations, comprising of different professional figures, institutions, and resources. Such breadth and complexity reflect the multi-dimensionality of the concept of health, which implies the adoption of a holistic approach. Health, rather than merely being the absence of disorders or infirmity, is a highly dynamic state, which represents the abilities of an individual to cope with adverse social, physical and emotional/psychological events and conditions, continuously adapting to them. Ensuring an adequate health state is one of the most important concerns, and the healthcare systems are called to renew themselves in order to meet with the new challenges and health needs. Throughout the last decades, due to demographic shifts and transitions, epidemiological and societal changes, technological achievements and scientific advancements, healthcare systems have undergone an extensive series of reform plans. Therefore, health policy- and decision-makers have made efforts to develop and implement initiatives for preserving the quality of the healthcare provisions. Strategic purchasing is an approach of purchasing that takes into account several health-related issues such as a proper, comprehensive planning of service delivery, the design and selection of the best packages of services and provisions, the appropriate selection of providers and the allocation of economical and financial incentives to provide better services and to motivate managers to adopt appropriate policies to implement strategic purchasing. Here, we intend to consider the various dimensions and aspects that can be effective in strategic purchasing, as well as the main barriers and obstacles that hinder its full implementation.

Unraveling the Complexity in the Design and Implementation of Bundled Payments: A Scoping Review of Key Elements From a Payer's Perspective

Policy Points Because bundled payments are relatively new and require a different type of collaboration among payers, providers, and other actors, their design and implementation process is complex. By sorting the 53 key elements that contribute to this complexity into specific pre- and postcontractual phases as well as the actors involved in the health system, this framework provides a comprehensive overview of this complexity from a payer's perspective. Strategically, the design and implementation of bundled payments should not be approached by payers as merely the introduction of a new contracting model, but as part of a broader transformation into a more sustainable, value-based health care system.

CONTEXT

Traditional fee-for-service (FFS) payment models in health care stimulate volume-driven care rather than value-driven care. To address this issue, increasing numbers of payers are adopting contracts based on bundled payments. Because their design and implementation are complex, understanding the elements that contribute to this complexity from a payer's perspective might facilitate their adoption. Consequently, the objective of our study was to identify and structure the key elements in the design and implementation of bundled payment contracts.

METHODS

Two of us independently and systematically examined the literature to identify all the elements considered relevant to our objective. We then developed a framework in which these elements were arranged according to the specific phases of a care procurement process and actors' interactions at various levels of the health system.

FINDINGS

The final study sample consisted of 147 articles in which we identified the 53 elements included in the framework. These elements were found in all phases of the pre- and postcontractual procurement process and involved actors at different levels of the health care system. Examples of elements that were cited frequently and are typical of bundled payment procurement, as opposed to FFS procurement, are (1) specification of care services, patients' characteristics, and corresponding costs, (2) small and heterogeneous patient populations, (3) allocation of payment and savings/losses among providers, (4) identification of patients in the bundle, (5) alignment of the existing care delivery model with the new payment model, and (6) limited effects on quality and costs in the first pilots and demonstrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with traditional FFS payment models, bundled payment contracts tend to introduce an alternative set of (financial) incentives, touch on almost all aspects of governance within organizations, and demand a different type of collaboration among organizations. Accordingly, payers should not strategically approach their design and implementation as merely the adoption of a new contracting model, but rather as part of a broader transformation toward a more sustainable value-based health care system, based less on short-term transactional negotiations and more on long-term collaborative relationships between payers and providers.

Strategic Purchasing: The Neglected Health Financing Function for Pursuing Universal Health Coverage in Low-and Middle-Income Countries Comment on "What's Needed to Develop Strategic Purchasing in Healthcare? Policy Lessons from a Realist Review"

Sanderson et al’s realist review of strategic purchasing identifies insights from two strands of theory: the economics of organisation and inter-organisational relationships. Our findings from a programme of research conducted by the RESYST (Resilient and Responsive Health Systems) consortium in seven countries echo these results, and add to them the crucial area of organisational capacity to implement complex reforms. We identify key areas for policy development. These are the need for: (1) a policy design with clearly delineated responsibilities; (2) a task network of organisations to engage in the broad set of functions needed; (3) more effective means of engaging with populations; (4) a range of technical and management capacities; and (5) an awareness of the multiple agency relationships that are created by the broader financing environment and the provider incentives generated by multiple financing flows.