Background

BackgroundThere is considerable interest at present in exploring the potential of social health insurance to increase access to and affordability of health care in Africa. A number of countries are currently experimenting with different approaches. Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) was passed into law in 2003 but fully implemented from late 2005. It has already reached impressive coverage levels. This article aims to provide a preliminary assessment of the NHIS to date. This can inform the development of the NHIS itself but also other innovations in the region.MethodsThis article is based on analysis of routine data, on secondary literature and on key informant interviews conducted by the authors with stakeholders at national, regional and district levels over the period of 2005 to 2009.ResultsIn relation to its financing sources, the NHIS is heavily reliant on tax funding for 70–75% of its revenue. This has permitted quick expansion of coverage, partly through the inclusion of large exempted population groups. Card holders increased from 7% of the population in 2005 to 45% in 2008. However, only around a third of these are contributing to the scheme financially. This presents a sustainability problem, in that revenue is de-coupled from the growing membership. In addition, the NHIS offers a broad benefits package, with no co-payments and limited gate-keeping, and also faces cost escalation related to its new payment system and the growing utilisation of members. These features contributed to a growth in distressed schemes and failure to pay outstanding facility claims in 2008.The NHIS has had a considerable impact on the health system as a whole, taking on a growing role in funding curative care. In 2009, it is expected to contribute 41% of the overall resource envelope. However there is evidence that this funding is not additional but has been switched from other funding channels. There are some equity concerns about this, as the new funding source (a VAT-based tax) may be more regressive. In addition, membership of the NHIS at present has a pro-rich bias, and a pro-urban bias in relation to renewals. Only a very small proportion is registered as indigent, and there is some evidence of 'squeezing out' of non-members from health care utilisation. Finally, considerable challenges remain in relation to strengthening the purchasing role of the NHIS, and also settling debates about its structure and accountability.ConclusionSome trade-offs will be necessary between the existing wide benefits package of the NHIS and the laudable desire to reach universal coverage. The overall resource envelope for health is likely to be stable rather than increasing over the medium-term. In the longer term, the investment costs in the NHIS will only be justified if it is able to increase the cost-effectiveness of purchasing and the responsiveness of the system as a whole.

The World Health Assembly of 2005 called for all health systems to move towards universal coverage, defined as "access to adequate health care for all at an affordable price". A crucial aspect in achieving universal coverage is the extent to which there are income and risk cross-subsidies in health systems. Yet this aspect appears to be ignored in many of the policy prescriptions directed at low-and middle-income countries, often resulting in high degrees of health system fragmentation. The aim of this paper is to explore the extent of fragmentation within the health systems of three African countries (Ghana, South Africa and the United Republic of Tanzania). Using a framework for analysing health-care financing in terms of its key functions, we describe how fragmentation has developed, how each country has attempted to address the arising equity challenges and what remains to be done to promote universal coverage.The analysis suggests that South Africa has made the least progress in addressing fragmentation, while Ghana appears to be pursuing a universal coverage policy in a more coherent way. To achieve universal coverage, health systems must reduce their reliance on out-of-pocket payments, maximize the size of risk pools, and resource allocation mechanisms must be put in place to either equalize risks between individual insurance schemes or equitably allocate general tax (and donor) funds. Ultimately, there needs to be greater integration of financing mechanisms to promote universal cover with strong income and risk cross-subsidies in the overall health system.

Background: The Home Management of Malaria (HMM) strategy was developed using chloroquine, a now obsolete drug, which has been replaced by artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in health facility settings. Incorporation of ACT in HMM would greatly expand access to effective antimalarial therapy by the populations living in underserved areas in malaria endemic countries. The feasibility and acceptability of incorporating ACT in HMM needs to be evaluated.

In Ghana, Tanzania and South Africa, health care financing is progressive overall. However, out-of-pocket payments and health insurance for the informal sector are regressive. The distribution of health care benefits is generally pro-rich. This paper explores the factors influencing these distributions in the three countries. Qualitative data were collected through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with insurance scheme members, the uninsured, health care providers and managers. Household surveys were also conducted in all countries. Flat-rate contributions contributed to the regressivity of informal sector voluntary schemes, either by design (in Tanzania) or due to difficulties in identifying household income levels (in Ghana). In all three countries, the regressivity of out-of-pocket payments is due to the incomplete enforcement of exemption and waiver policies, partial or no insurance cover among poorer segments of the population and limited understanding of entitlements among these groups. Generally, the pro-rich distribution of benefits is due to limited access to higher level facilities among poor and rural populations, who rely on public primary care facilities and private pharmacies. Barriers to accessing health care include medical and transport costs, exacerbated by the lack of comprehensive insurance coverage among poorer groups. Service availability problems, including frequent drug stock-outs, limited or no diagnostic equipment, unpredictable opening hours and insufficient skilled staff also limit service access. Poor staff attitudes and lack of confidence in the skills of health workers were found to be important barriers to access. Financing reforms should therefore not only consider how to generate funds for health care, but also explicitly address the full range of affordability, availability and acceptability barriers to access in order to achieve equitable financing and benefit incidence patterns.