No abstract

No abstract

Many countries rely heavily on patients' out-of-pocket payments to providers to finance their health care systems. This prevents some people from seeking care and results in financial catastrophe and impoverishment for others who do obtain care. Surveys in eightynine countries covering 89 percent of the world's population suggest that 150 million people globally suffer financial catastrophe annually because they pay for health services. Prepayment mechanisms protect people from financial catastrophe, but there is no strong evidence that social health insurance systems offer better or worse protection than tax-based systems do. 1 This can lead to financial hardship and even impoverishment because people are too ill to work. The other side of the coin, less well understood, is that many of those who do seek care suffer financial catastrophe and impoverishment as a result of meeting these costs.2 This occurs in both rich and poor countries. 3This paper focuses on the second effect-the financial consequences of paying for care. It begins by presenting new data from a large data set-116 surveys covering 89 countries-allowing the first global estimates of the extent of catastrophic spending and impoverishment associated with out-of-pocket payments for health services to be made. It then explores health system and population characteristics associated with high levels of catastrophic spending across countries, as the basis for assessing the policy options available to reduce the incidence of financial catastrophe. 4 Discussion and conclusions follow.9 7 2 J u l y /A u g u s t 2 0 0 7 O u t -O f -P o c k e t S p e n d i n g

The growing use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to evaluate specific interventions is dominated by studies of prospective new interventions compared with current practice. This type of analysis does not explicitly take a sectoral perspective in which the costs and effectiveness of all possible interventions are compared, in order to select the mix that maximizes health for a given set of resource constraints. WHO guidelines on generalized CEA propose the application of CEA to a wide range of interventions to provide general information on the relative costs and health benefits of different interventions in the absence of various highly local decision constraints. This general approach will contribute to judgements on whether interventions are highly cost-effective, highly cost-ineffective, or something in between. Generalized CEAs require the evaluation of a set of interventions with respect to the counterfactual of the null set of the related interventions, i.e. the natural history of disease. Such general perceptions of relative cost-effectiveness, which do not pertain to any specific decision-maker, can be a useful reference point for evaluating the directions for enhancing allocative efficiency in a variety of settings. The proposed framework allows the identification of current allocative inefficiencies as well as opportunities presented by new interventions.

No abstract