Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Abstract

Summary Background Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Methods Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0–100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target—1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023—we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Findings Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2–47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7–61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9–3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast,...

Autocratisation and universal health coverage: synthetic control study

“…These additional results are presented in the supplementary appendix. In keeping with global trends,27 the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s UHC effective coverage index did increase on average in autocratising countries during the post-treatment period. However, our results show that on average the index was 7.4% (95% confidence interval 6.9% to 8.3%, P<0.001) lower than the synthetic control after 10 years.…”

“…Each are weighted by the estimated potential for indicator specific interventions to reduce the associated health burden and then combined into an overall score, scaled between 0 and 100. This indicator is available for 204 countries for all years from 1990 to 2019 2728. One interpretation of the index is that a 1 point increase in a given country’s UHC effective coverage index score reflects an estimated 1% increase in that country’s population with access to effective healthcare.…”

Low Vision Profile in Jordan: A Vision Rehabilitation Center-Based Study

“…Furthermore, there is shortage of data about rehabilitation service coverage in developing countries. The Universal Health Coverage study, performed on 204 countries [ 20 ], including Jordan, a Middle Eastern country, suggested prioritizing data collection in this field. Additionally, many of the available studies are derived from population surveys that lack specific clinical diagnosis [ 10 , 20 , 21 ].…”

Reduced Impact of Endovascular Thrombectomy on Disability in Real-World Practice, Relative to Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence in Australia

“…Even though there is controversy around the use of DALYs as an outcome measure ( 14 ), they remain an important index to quantify the disease burden ( 15 ). Given the important role that DALYs play in informing policy decision-making, this study aims to improve the evidence based on comparing the DALYs saved from EVT in LVO stroke patients with LVO to assess the impact of the implementation of EVT into routine clinical care compared with the benefits reported in EXTEND-IA in Australia.…”