Who pays for and who benefits from health care services in Uganda?

BACKGROUND

Equity in health care entails payment for health services according to the capacity to pay and the receipt of benefits according to need. In Uganda, as in many African countries, although equity is extolled in government policy documents, not much is known about who pays for, and who benefits from, health services. This paper assesses both equity in the financing and distribution of health care benefits in Uganda.

METHODS

Data are drawn from the most recent nationally representative Uganda National Household Survey 2009/10. Equity in health financing is assessed considering the main domestic health financing sources (i.e., taxes and direct out-of-pocket payments). This is achieved using bar charts and standard concentration and Kakwani indices. Benefit incidence analysis is used to assess the distribution of health services for both public and non-public providers across socio-economic groups and the need for care. Need is assessed using limitations in functional ability while socioeconomic groups are created using per adult equivalent consumption expenditure.

RESULTS

Overall, health financing in Uganda is marginally progressive; the rich pay more as a proportion of their income than the poor. The various taxes are more progressive than out-of-pocket payments (e.g., the Kakwani index of personal income tax is 0.195 compared with 0.064 for out-of-pocket payments). However, taxes are a much smaller proportion of total health sector financing compared with out-of-pocket payments. The distribution of total health sector services benefitsis pro-rich. The richest quintile receives 19.2% of total benefits compared to the 17.9% received by the poorest quintile. The rich also receive a much higher share of benefits relative to their need. Benefits from public health units are pro-poor while hospital based care, in both public and non-public sectors are pro-rich.

CONCLUSION

There is a renewed interest in ensuring equity in the financing and use of health services. Based on the results in this paper, it would seem that in order to safeguard such equity, there is a need for policy that focuses on addressing the health needs of the poor while continuing to ensure that the burden of financing health services does not rest disproportionately on the poor.

Assessing catastrophic and impoverishing effects of health care payments in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Direct out-of-pocket payments for health care are recognised as limiting access to health care services and also endangering the welfare of households. In Uganda, such payments comprise a large portion of total health financing. This study assesses the catastrophic and impoverishing impact of paying for health care out-of-pocket in Uganda.

METHODS

Using data from the Uganda National Household Surveys 2009/10, the catastrophic impact of out-of-pocket health care payments is defined using thresholds that vary with household income. The impoverishing effect of out-of-pocket health care payments is assessed using the Ugandan national poverty line and the World Bank poverty line ($1.25/day).

RESULTS

A high level and intensity of both financial catastrophe and impoverishment due to out-of-pocket payments are recorded. Using an initial threshold of 10% of household income, about 23% of Ugandan households face financial ruin. Based on both the $1.25/day and the Ugandan poverty lines, about 4% of the population are further impoverished by such payments. This represents a relative increase in poverty head count of 17.1% and 18.1% respectively.

CONCLUSION

The absence of financial protection in Uganda's health system calls for concerted action. Currently, out-of-pocket payments account for a large share of total health financing and there is no pooled prepayment system available. There is therefore a need to move towards mandatory prepayment. In this way, people could access the needed health services without any associated financial consequence.

Estimates of child deaths prevented from malaria prevention scale-up in Africa 2001-2010

BACKGROUND

Funding from external agencies for malaria control in Africa has increased dramatically over the past decade resulting in substantial increases in population coverage by effective malaria prevention interventions. This unprecedented effort to scale-up malaria interventions is likely improving child survival and will likely contribute to meeting Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 to reduce the < 5 mortality rate by two thirds between 1990 and 2015.

METHODS

The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) model was used to quantify the likely impact that malaria prevention intervention scale-up has had on malaria mortality over the past decade (2001-2010) across 43 malaria endemic countries in sub-Saharan African. The likely impact of ITNs and malaria prevention interventions in pregnancy (intermittent preventive treatment [IPTp] and ITNs used during pregnancy) over this period was assessed.

RESULTS

The LiST model conservatively estimates that malaria prevention intervention scale-up over the past decade has prevented 842,800 (uncertainty: 562,800-1,364,645) child deaths due to malaria across 43 malaria-endemic countries in Africa, compared to a baseline of the year 2000. Over the entire decade, this represents an 8.2% decrease in the number of malaria-caused child deaths that would have occurred over this period had malaria prevention coverage remained unchanged since 2000. The biggest impact occurred in 2010 with a 24.4% decrease in malaria-caused child deaths compared to what would have happened had malaria prevention interventions not been scaled-up beyond 2000 coverage levels. ITNs accounted for 99% of the lives saved.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that funding for malaria prevention in Africa over the past decade has had a substantial impact on decreasing child deaths due to malaria. Rapidly achieving and then maintaining universal coverage of these interventions should be an urgent priority for malaria control programmes in the future. Successful scale-up in many African countries will likely contribute substantially to meeting MDG 4, as well as succeed in meeting MDG 6 (Target 1) to halt and reverse malaria incidence by 2015.

Increasing access to surgical services in sub-saharan Africa: priorities for national and international agencies recommended by the Bellagio Essential Surgery Group

In this Policy Forum, the Bellagio Essential Surgery Group, which was formed to advocate for increased access to surgery in Africa, recommends four priority areas for national and international agencies to target in order to address the surgical burden of disease in sub-Saharan Africa.

Will private health insurance schemes subscriptions continue after the introduction of National Health Insurance in Uganda?

INTRODUCTION

Uganda is currently designing a National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme, with the aim of raising additional resources for the health sector. Very little was known about the health insurance market in Uganda before this study, so one of our main objectives was to investigate the nature of the private health insurance market in Uganda and the opinions of various stakeholders on NHI, with the view to establish the impact of NHI implementation on the existing PHI. Specifically, we aimed to gather the opinions of employees and employers on the likely impact of NHI on their PHI schemes.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with health insurance providers, and a sample of employers and employees in Kampala, using structured questionnaires and analysed quantitative data using STATA. Qualitative data was analysed through grouping of emerging themes. Community-based health insurances were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

Health insurance and/or prepayment schemes are offered by a handful of organisations or private health providers, mainly in Kampala and cover a relatively small percentage of Uganda's population. The premiums charged and the benefit packages offered by the different agencies vary widely. There are 2 health insurance agencies, 2 HMOs and about 5 or more private providers offering pre-payment schemes to their patients. Responses from a significant proportion of employers and employees show that PHI schemes may be abandoned once the mandatory NHI scheme is implemented. A few respondents argued that they would maintain their PHI subscriptions because of their perceptions of the quality of services likely to be provided under the NHI scheme.

CONCLUSION

If successfully introduced, the NHI scheme may displace existing private health insurance and/or pre-payment schemes in Uganda. The extent to which PHI schemes are displaced depends on whether NHI is successfully implemented and the quality of services being offered under the NHI scheme.

Is health care financing in Uganda equitable?

INTRODUCTION

Health care financing provides the resources and economic incentives for operating health systems and is a key determinant of health system performance. Equitable financing is based on: financial protection, progressive financing and cross-subsidies. This paper describes Uganda's health care financing landscape and documents the key equity issues associated with the current financing mechanisms.

METHODS

We extensively reviewed government documents and relevant literature and conducted key informant interviews, with the aim of assessing whether Uganda's health care financing mechanisms exhibited the key principles of fair financing.

RESULTS

Uganda's health sector remains significantly under-funded, mainly relying on private sources of financing, especially out-of-pocket spending. At 9.6 % of total government expenditure, public spending on health is far below the Abuja target of 15% that GoU committed to. Prepayments form a small proportion of funding for Uganda's health sector. There is limited cross-subsidisation and high fragmentation within and between health financing mechanisms, mainly due to high reliance on out-of-pocket payments and limited prepayment mechanisms. Without compulsory health insurance and low coverage of private health insurance, Uganda has limited pooling of resources, and hence minimal cross-subsidisation. Although tax revenue is equitable, the remaining financing mechanisms for Uganda are inequitable due to their regressive nature, their lack of financial protection and limited cross-subsidisation.

CONCLUSION

Overall, Uganda's current health financing is inequitable and fragmented. The government should take explicit action to promote equitable health care financing by establishing pre-payment schemes, enhancing cross-subsidisation mechanisms and through appropriate integration of financing mechanisms.

Should countries implementing an artemisinin-based combination malaria treatment policy also introduce rapid diagnostic tests?

Background

Within the context of increasing antimalarial costs and or decreasing malaria transmission, the importance of limiting antimalarial treatment to only those confirmed as having malaria parasites becomes paramount. This motivates for this assessment of the cost-effectiveness of routine use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) as an integral part of deploying artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs).

Methods

The costs and cost-effectiveness of using RDTs to limit the use of ACTs to those who actually have Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia in two districts in southern Mozambique were assessed. To evaluate the potential impact of introducing definitive diagnosis using RDTs (costing $0.95), five scenarios were considered, assuming that the use of definitive diagnosis would find that between 25% and 75% of the clinically diagnosed malaria patients are confirmed to be parasitaemic. The base analysis compared two ACTs, artesunate plus sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (AS+SP) costing $1.77 per adult treatment and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) costing $2.40 per adult treatment, as well as the option of restricting RDT use to only those older than six years. Sensitivity analyses considered lower cost ACTs and RDTs and different population age distributions.

Results

Compared to treating patients on the basis of clinical diagnosis, the use of RDTs in all clinically diagnosed malaria cases results in cost savings only when 29% and 52% or less of all suspected malaria cases test positive for malaria and are treated with AS+SP and AL, respectively. These cut-off points increase to 41.5% (for AS+SP) and to 74% (for AL) when the use of RDTs is restricted to only those older than six years of age. When 25% of clinically diagnosed patients are RDT positive and treated using AL, there are cost savings per malaria positive patient treated of up to $2.12. When more than 29% of clinically diagnosed cases are malaria test positive, the incremental cost per malaria positive patient treated is less than US$ 1. When relatively less expensive ACTs are introduced (e.g. current WHO preferential price for AL of $1.44 per adult treatment), the RDT price to the healthcare provider should be $0.65 or lower for RDTs to be cost saving in populations with between 30 and 52% of clinically diagnosed malaria cases being malaria test positive.

Conclusion

While the use of RDTs in all suspected cases has been shown to be cost-saving when parasite prevalence among clinically diagnosed malaria cases is low to moderate, findings show that targeting RDTs at the group older than six years and treating children less than six years on the basis of clinical diagnosis is even more cost-saving. In semi-immune populations, young children carry the highest risk of severe malaria and many healthcare providers would find it harder to deny antimalarials to those who test negative in this age group.