Search

ObjectivePrevious research suggests a significant relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV) and HIV infection in women and that the risk of IPV is heightened in women with disabilities. Women with disabilities, particularly those residing in low-income and middle-income countries, may experience additional burdens that increase their vulnerability to IPV. We aimed to examine the association between having disability and HIV infection and the risk of IPV among women in South Africa.DesignUsing the 2016 South Africa Demographic and Health Survey, we calculated the prevalence of IPV and conducted modified Poisson regressions to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios of experiencing IPV by disability and HIV status.ParticipantsOur final analytical sample included 1269 ever-partnered women aged 18–49 years, who responded to the IPV module and received HIV testing.ResultsThe prevalence of IPV was twice as high in women with disabilities with HIV infection compared with women without disabilities without HIV infection (21.2% vs 50.1%). Our unadjusted regression analysis showed that compared with women without disabilities without HIV infection, women with disabilities with HIV infection had almost four times higher odds (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.27 to 10.9, pConclusionsWomen with disabilities and HIV infection are at exceptionally high risk of IPV in South Africa. Given that HIV infection and disability magnify each other’s risks for IPV, targeted interventions to prevent IPV and to address the complex and varied needs of doubly marginalised populations of women with disabilities with HIV infection are critical.

South Africa has embarked on major health policy reform to deliver universal health coverage through the establishment of National Health Insurance (NHI). The aim is to improve access, remove financial barriers to care, and enhance care quality. Health technology assessment (HTA) is explicitly identified in the proposed NHI legislation and will have a prominent role in informing decisions about adoption and access to health interventions and technologies. The specific arrangements and approach to HTA in support of this legislation are yet to be determined. Although there is currently no formal national HTA institution in South Africa, there are several processes in both the public and private healthcare sectors that use elements of HTA to varying extents to inform access and resource allocation decisions. Institutions performing HTAs or related activities in South Africa include the National and Provincial Departments of Health, National Treasury, National Health Laboratory Service, Council for Medical Schemes, medical scheme administrators, managed care organizations, academic or research institutions, clinical societies and associations, pharmaceutical and devices companies, private consultancies, and private sector hospital groups. Existing fragmented HTA processes should coordinate and conform to a standardized, fit-for-purpose process and structure that can usefully inform priority setting under NHI and for other decision makers. This transformation will require comprehensive and inclusive planning with dedicated funding and regulation, and provision of strong oversight mechanisms and leadership.

Background Many countries have committed to achieving Universal Health Coverage. This paper summarizes selected health financing themes from five middle-income country case studies with incomplete progress towards UHC. Methods The paper focuses on key flagship UHC programs in these countries, which exist along other publicly financed health delivery systems, reviewed through the lens of key health financing functions such as revenue raising, pooling and purchasing as well as governance and institutional arrangements. Results There is variable progress across countries. Indonesia’s Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN) reforms have made substantial progress in health services coverage and health financing indicators though challenges remain in its implementation. In contrast, Ghana has seen reduced funding levels for health and achieved less than 50% in the UHC service coverage index. In India, despite Ayushman Bharat (PM-JAY) reforms having provided important innovations in purchasing and public-private mix, out of pocket spending remains high and the public health financing level low. Kenya still has a challenge to use public financing to enhance coverage for the informal sector, while South Africa has made little progress in strategic purchasing. Conclusions Despite variations across countries, therefore, important challenges include inadequate financing, sub-optimal pooling, and unmet expectations in strategic purchasing. While complex federal systems may complicate the path forward for most of these countries, evidence of strong political commitment in some of these countries bodes well for further progress.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the need for well-functioning primary health care (PHC) into sharp focus. PHC is the best platform for providing basic health interventions (including effective management of non-communicable diseases) and essential public health functions. PHC is widely recognised as a key component of all high-performing health systems and is an essential foundation of universal health coverage. PHC was famously set as a global priority in the 1978 Alma-Ata Declaration. More recently, the 2018 Astana Declaration on PHC made a similar call for universal coverage of basic health care across the life cycle, as well as essential public health functions, community engagement, and a multisectoral approach to health. Yet in most low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), PHC is not delivering on the promises of these declarations. In many places across the globe, PHC does not meet the needs of the people—including both users and providers—who should be at its centre. Public funding for PHC is insufficient, access to PHC services remains inequitable, and patients often have to pay out of pocket to use them. A vicious cycle has undermined PHC: underfunded services are unreliable, of poor quality, and not accountable to users. Therefore, many people bypass primary health-care facilities to seek out higher-level specialist care. This action deprives PHC of funding, and the lack of resources further exacerbates the problems that have driven patients elsewhere.

COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A 'fitness-for-purpose' flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. Holmdahl and Buckee (2020) A 'reporting standards trajectory', which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, 'minimum', 'acceptable', and 'ideal', and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. Malla et al. (2018) A framework for "collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation" which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.

Public payers around the world are increasingly using cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) to assess the value-for-money of an intervention and make coverage decisions. However, there is still much confusion about the meaning and uses of the CET, how it should be calculated, and what constitutes an adequate evidence base for its formulation. One widely referenced and used threshold in the last decade has been the 1-3 GDP per capita, which is often attributed to the Commission on Macroeconomics and WHO guidelines on Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE). For many reasons, however, this threshold has been widely criticised; which has led experts across the world, including the WHO, to discourage its use. This has left a vacuum for policy-makers and technical staff at a time when countries are wanting to move towards Universal Health Coverage. This article seeks to address this gap by offering five practical options for decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries that can be used instead of the 1-3 GDP rule, to combine existing evidence with fair decision-rules or develop locally relevant CETs. It builds on existing literature as well as an engagement with a group of experts and decision-makers working in low, middle and high income countries.

The World Bank is publishing nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3) between 2015 and 2018. Volume 9, Improving Health and Reducing Poverty, summarises the main messages from all the volumes and contains cross-cutting analyses. This Review draws on all nine volumes to convey conclusions. The analysis in DCP3 is built around 21 essential packages that were developed in the nine volumes. Each essential package addresses the concerns of a major professional community (eg, child health or surgery) and contains a mix of intersectoral policies and health-sector interventions. 71 intersectoral prevention policies were identified in total, 29 of which are priorities for early introduction. Interventions within the health sector were grouped onto five platforms (population based, community level, health centre, first-level hospital, and referral hospital). DCP3 defines a model concept of essential universal health coverage (EUHC) with 218 interventions that provides a starting point for country-specific analysis of priorities. Assuming steady-state implementation by 2030, EUHC in lower-middle-income countries would reduce premature deaths by an estimated 4·2 million per year. Estimated total costs prove substantial: about 9·1% of (current) gross national income (GNI) in low-income countries and 5·2% of GNI in lower-middle-income countries. Financing provision of continuing intervention against chronic conditions accounts for about half of estimated incremental costs. For lower-middle-income countries, the mortality reduction from implementing the EUHC can only reach about half the mortality reduction in non-communicable diseases called for by the Sustainable Development Goals. Full achievement will require increased investment or sustained intersectoral action, and actions by finance ministries to tax smoking and polluting emissions and to reduce or eliminate (often large) subsidies on fossil fuels appear of central importance. DCP3 is intended to be a model starting point for analyses at the country level, but country-specific cost structures, epidemiological needs, and national priorities will generally lead to definitions of EUHC that differ from country to country and from the model in this Review. DCP3 is particularly relevant as achievement of EUHC relies increasingly on greater domestic finance, with global developmental assistance in health focusing more on global public goods. In addition to assessing effects on mortality, DCP3 looked at outcomes of EUHC not encompassed by the disability-adjusted life-year metric and related cost-effectiveness analyses. The other objectives included financial protection (potentially better provided upstream by keeping people out of the hospital rather than downstream by paying their hospital bills for them), stillbirths averted, palliative care, contraception, and child physical and intellectual growth. The first 1000 days after conception are highly important for child development, but the next 7000 days are likewise important and often neglected.

Five years after the release of its Green Paper on National Health Insurance (NHI),years after the institution of NHI pilot sites and following the recent release of the White Pa 4 per on NHI, South Africa (SA) needs to move beyond the phase 1 plans of policy making and healthening activities to phase 2 – putting into place the legal and institutional frameth system strengworks and systems for implementation of its universal health coverage (UHC) system. In doing so, SA can draw on considerable practical lessons from other countries’ reforms in managing UHC with favourable equity outcomes over the past decade. We outline some potentially significant lessons from the Thai health financing system for SA.

South Africa provides a useful country case study for financing vaccinations. It has been an early adopter of new vaccinations and has financed these almost exclusively from domestic resources, largely through general taxation. National vaccination policy is determined by the Department of Health, based on advice from a national advisory group on immunisation. Standard health economic criteria of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, affordability and burden of disease are used to assess whether new vaccinations should be introduced. Global guidelines and the advice of local and international experts are also helpful in making the determination to introduce new vaccines. In terms of recent decisions to introduce new vaccines against pneumococcal disease and rotavirus diarrhoea in children, the evidence has proved unequivocal. Universal rollout has been implemented even though this has led to a fivefold increase in national spending on vaccines. The total cost to government remains below 1–1.5% of public expenditures for health, which is viewed by the South African authorities as affordable and necessary given the number of lives saved and morbidity averted. To manage the rapid increase in domestic spending, efforts have been made to scale up coverage over several years, give greater attention to negotiating price reductions and, in some cases, obtain initial donations or frontloaded deliveries to facilitate earlier universal rollout. There has been strong support from a wide range of stakeholders for the early introduction of new generation vaccines.