Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Why issues get on the policy agenda, move into policy formulation and implementation while others drop off in the process is an important field of enquiry to inform public social policy development and implementation. This paper seeks to advance our understanding of health policy agenda setting, formulation and implementation processes in Ghana, a lower middle income country by exploring how and why less than three months into the implementation of a pilot prior to national scale up; primary care maternal services that were part of the basket of services in a primary care per capita national health insurance scheme provider payment system dropped off the agenda.Methods: We used a case study design to systematically reconstruct the decisions and actions surrounding the rise and fall of primary care maternal health services from the capitation policy. Data was collected from July 2012 and August 2014 through in-depth interviews, observations and document review. The data was analysed drawing on concepts of policy resistance, power and arenas of conflict.Results: During the agenda setting and policy formulation stages; predominantly technical policy actors within the bureaucratic arena used their expertise and authority for consensus building to get antenatal, normal delivery and postnatal services included in the primary care per capita payment system. Once policy implementation started, policy makers were faced with unanticipated resistance. Service providers, especially the private self-financing used their professional knowledge and skills, access to political and social power and street level bureaucrat power to contest and resist various aspects of the policy and its implementation arrangements - including the inclusion of primary care maternal health services. The context of intense public arena conflicts and controversy in an election year added to the high level political anxiety generated by the contestation. The President and Minister of Health responded and removed antenatal, normal delivery and postnatal care from the per capita package.Conclusion: The tensions and complicated relationships between technical considerations and politics and bureaucratic versus public arenas of conflict are important influences that can cause items to rise and fall on policy agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]