No abstract

BackgroundUganda is the last East African country to adopt a National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS). To lessen the inequitable burden of healthcare spending, health financing reform has focused on the establishment of national health insurance. The objective of this research is to depict how stakeholders and their power and interests have shaped the process of agenda setting and policy formulation for Uganda’s proposed NHIS. The study provides a contextual analysis of the development of NHIS policy within the context of national policies and processes.MethodsThe methodology is a single case study of agenda setting and policy formulation related to the proposed NHIS in Uganda. It involves an analysis of the real-life context, the content of proposals, the process, and a retrospective stakeholder analysis in terms of policy development. Data collection comprised a literature review of published documents, technical reports, policy briefs, and memos obtained from Uganda’s Ministry of Health and other unpublished sources. Formal discussions were held with ministry staff involved in the design of the scheme and some members of the task force to obtain clarification, verify events, and gain additional information.ResultsThe process of developing the NHIS has been an incremental one, characterised by small-scale, gradual changes and repeated adjustments through various stakeholder engagements during the three phases of development: from 1995 to 1999; 2000 to 2005; and 2006 to 2011. Despite political will in the government, progress with the NHIS has been slow, and it has yet to be implemented. Stakeholders, notably the private sector, played an important role in influencing the pace of the development process and the currently proposed design of the scheme.ConclusionsThis study underscores the importance of stakeholder analysis in major health reforms. Early use of stakeholder analysis combined with an ongoing review and revision of NHIS policy proposals during stakeholder discussions would be an effective strategy for avoiding potential pitfalls and obstacles in policy implementation. Given the private sector’s influence on negotiations over health insurance design in Uganda, this paper also reviews the experience of two countries with similar stakeholder dynamics.

No abstract

Background/aimsIn rare diseases, health-related quality of life (HRQL) data can be difficult to capture. Given the ultrarare nature of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease (IRD), it was not feasible to recruit a patient sample and collect HRQL data prospectively. The objectives of this study were to develop health state descriptions of RPE65-mediated IRD, and to estimate associated patient utilities.MethodsVignette descriptions of IRD states were developed and then assessed to elicit utilities. The vignettes ranged from moderate vision loss through to hand motion to no light perception (NLP). Six retina specialists with additional expertise in IRDs provided a proxy valuation of the vignettes using generic measures of health—the 5-level version of EQ-5D-5L and Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3). The data were then scored using standard methods for each instrument.ResultsWeights from both HRQL measures revealed a large decline in scores with vision loss. The EQ-5D-5L weights ranged from 0.709 for moderate vision loss to 0.152 for hand motion to NLP. The HUI3 weights ranged from 0.519 to − 0.039, respectively. A decline was seen on both measures, and the degree of decline from moderate vision loss to NLP was identical on both (−0.56).ConclusionThis is the first study to report HRQL weights (or utilities) for health states describing different levels of vision loss in patients with IRD, specifically those with RPE65-mediated disease. The parallel decline in scores from the EQ-5D and HUI3 corroborates the substantial impact of progressive vision loss on HRQL.

BackgroundInnovative and sustainable strategies to strengthen districts and other sub-national health systems and management are urgently required to reduce child mortality. Although highly effective evidence-based and affordable child survival interventions are well-known, at the district level, lack of data, motivation, analytic and planning capacity often impedes prioritization and management weaknesses impede implementation. The Community and District Empowerment for Scale-up (CODES) project is a complex management intervention designed to test whether districts when empowered with data and management tools can prioritize and implement evidence-based child survival interventions equitably.MethodsThe CODES strategy combines management, diagnostic, and evaluation tools to identify and analyze the causes of bottlenecks to implementation, build capacity of district management teams to implement context-specific solutions, and to foster community monitoring and social accountability to increase demand for services. CODES combines UNICEF tools designed to systematize priority setting, allocation of resources and problem solving with Community dialogues based on Citizen Report Cards and U-Reports used to engage and empower communities in monitoring health service provision and to demand for quality services. Implementation and all data collection will be by the districts teams or local Community-based Organizations who will be supported by two local implementing partners. The study will be evaluated as a cluster randomized trial with eight intervention and eight comparison districts over a period of 3 years. Evaluation will focus on differences in uptake of child survival interventions and will follow an intention-to-treat analysis. We will also document and analyze experiences in implementation including changes in management practices.DiscussionBy increasing the District Health Management Teams’ capacity to prioritize and implement context-specific solutions, and empowering communities to become active partners in service delivery, coverage of child survival interventions will increase. Lessons learned on strengthening district-level managerial capacities and mechanisms for community monitoring may have implications, not only in Uganda but also in other similar settings, especially with regard to accelerating effective coverage of key child survival interventions using locally available resources.Trial registration numberISRCTN15705788, Date of registration; 24 July 2015.