No abstract

Universal health coverage (UHC) means that all people can access health services of good quality without experiencing financial hardship. Three health financing functions-revenue raising, pooling of funds and purchasing health services-are vital for UHC. This article focuses on pooling: the accumulation and management of prepaid financial resources. Pooling creates opportunities for redistribution of resources to support equitable access to needed services and greater financial protection even if additional revenues for UHC cannot be raised. However, in many countries pooling arrangements are very fragmented, which create barriers to redistribution. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of pooling reform options to support countries who are exploring ways to enhance redistribution of funds. We outline four broad types of pooling reforms and discuss their potential and challenges in addressing fragmentation of health financing: (i) shifting to compulsory or automatic coverage for everybody; (ii) merging different pools to increase the number of pool members and the diversity of pool members' health needs and risks; (iii) cross-subsidization of pools that have members with lower revenues and higher health risks; and (iv) harmonization across pools, such as benefits, payment methods and rates. Countries can combine several reform elements. Whether the potential for redistribution is actually realized through a pooling reform also depends on the alignment of the pooling structure with revenue raising and purchasing arrangements. Finally, the scope for reform is constrained by institutional and political feasibility, and the political economy around pooling reforms needs to be anticipated and managed.

No abstract

Options for health financing reform are often portrayed as a choice between general taxation (known as the Beveridge model) and social health insurance (known as the Bismarck model). Ten years of health financing reform in Kyrgyzstan, since the introduction of its compulsory health insurance fund in 1997, provide an excellent example of why it is wrong to reduce health financing policy to a choice between the Beveridge and Bismarck models. Rather than fragment the system according to the insurance status of the population, as many other low-and middle-income countries have done, the Kyrgyz reforms were guided by the objective of having a single system for the entire population. Key features include the role and gradual development of the compulsory health insurance fund as the single purchaser of health-care services for the entire population using output-based payment methods, the complete restructuring of pooling arrangements from the former decentralized budgetary structure to a single national pool, and the establishment of an explicit benefit package. Central to the process was the transformation of the role of general budget revenues -the main source of public funding for health -from directly subsidizing the supply of services to subsidizing the purchase of services on behalf of the entire population by redirecting them into the health insurance fund. Through their approach to health financing policy, and pooling in particular, the Kyrgyz health reformers demonstrated that different sources of funds can be used in an explicitly complementary manner to enable the creation of a unified, universal system.Une traduction en français de ce résumé figure à la fin de l'article. Al final del artículo se facilita una traducción al español. ‫املقالة.‬ ‫لهذه‬ ‫الكامل‬ ‫النص‬ ‫نهاية‬ ‫يف‬ ‫الخالصة‬ ‫لهذه‬ ‫العربية‬ ‫الرتجمة‬

The Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted primary health care (PHC) across Europe. Since March 2020, the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) has documented country-level responses using a structured template distributed to country experts. We extracted all PHC-relevant data from the HSRM and iteratively developed an analysis framework examining the models of PHC delivery employed by PHC providers in response to the pandemic, as well as the government enablers supporting these models. Despite the heterogenous PHC structures and capacities across European countries, we identified three prevalent models of PHC delivery employed: (1) multi-disciplinary primary care teams coordinating with public health to deliver the emergency response and essential services; (2) PHC providers defining and identifying vulnerable populations for medical and social outreach; and (3) PHC providers employing digital solutions for remote triage, consultation, monitoring and prescriptions to avoid unnecessary contact. These were supported by government enablers such as increasing workforce numbers, managing demand through public-facing risk communications, and prioritising pandemic response efforts linked to vulnerable populations and digital solutions. We discuss the importance of PHC systems maintaining and building on these models of PHC delivery to strengthen preparedness for future outbreaks and better respond to the contemporary health challenges.