International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Year:2016 | Volume:5 | Issue:7|Papers Count:10

Over half of the world’s population lives in cities and United Nations (UN) demographers project an increase of 2.5 billion more urban dwellers by 2050. Yet there is too little systematic comparative research on the practice of urban health policy and management (HPAM), particularly in the megacities of middle-income and developing nations. We make a case for creating a global database on cities, population health and healthcare systems. The expenses involved in data collection would be difficult to justify without some review of previous work, some agreement on indicators worth measuring, conceptual and methodological considerations to guide the construction of the global database, and a set of research questions and hypotheses to test. We, therefore, address these issues in a manner that we hope will stimulate further discussion and collaboration.

Background: The unregulated availability and irrational use of tuberculosis (TB) medicines is a major issue of public health concern globally. Governments of many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have committed to regulating the quality and availability of TB medicines, but with variable success. Regulation of TB medicines remains an intractable challenge in many settings, but the reasons for this are poorly understood. The objective of this paper is to elaborate processes of regulation of quality and availability of TB medicines in three LMICs – India, Tanzania, and Zambia – and to understand the factors that constrain and enable these processes.Methods: We adopted the action-centred approach of policy implementation analysis that draws on the experiences of relevant policy and health system actors in order to understand regulatory processes. We drew on data from three case studies commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), on the regulation of TB medicines in India, Tanzania, and Zambia. Qualitative research methods were used, including in-depth interviews with 89 policy and health system actors and document review. Data were organized thematically into accounts of regulators’ authority and capacity; extent of policy implementation; and efficiency, transparency, and accountability.Results: In India, findings included the absence of a comprehensive policy framework for regulation of TB medicines, constraints of authority and capacity of regulators, and poor implementation of prescribing and dispensing norms in the majority private sector. Tanzania had a policy that restricted import, prescribing and dispensing of TB medicines to government operators. Zambia procured and dispensed TB medicines mainly through government services, albeit in the absence of a single policy for restriction of medicines. Three cross-cutting factors emerged as crucially influencing regulatory processes - political and stakeholder support for regulation, technical and human resource capacity of regulatory bodies, and the manner of private actors’ influence on regulatory policy and implementation.Conclusion: Strengthening regulation to ensure the quality and availability of TB medicines in LMIC with emerging private markets may necessitate financial and technical inputs to upgrade regulatory bodies, as well as broader political and ethical actions to reorient and transform their current roles.

Background: One of the main objectives of health systems is the financial protection against out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditures. OOP health expenditures can lead to catastrophic payments, impoverishment or poverty among households. In Iran, health sector evolution plan (HSEP) has been implemented since 2014 in order to achieve universal health coverage and reduce the OOP health expenditures as a percentage of total health expenditures. This study aimed to explore the percentage of households facing catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) after the implementation of HSEP and the factors that determine CHE.Methods: A total of 663 households were selected through a cluster sampling based on the census framework of Sanandaj Health Center in July 2015. Data were gathered using face-to-face interviews based on the household section of the World Health Survey questionnaire. In this study, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, if household health expenditures were equal to or more than 40% of the household capacity to pay, household was considered to be facing CHE. The determinants of CHE were analyzed using logistic regression model.Results: The rates of households facing CHE were 4.8%. The key determinants of CHE were household economic status, presence of elderly or disabled members in the household and utilization of inpatient or rehabilitation services.Conclusion: The comparison of our findings and those of other studies carried out using a methodology comparable with ours in different parts of Iran before the implementation of HSEP suggests that the implementation of recent reforms has reduced CHE at the household level. Utilization of inpatient and rehabilitation services, the presence of elderly or disabled members in the household and the low economic status of the household would increase the likelihood of facing CHE. These variables should be considered by health policy-makers in order to review and revise content of recent reform, thus financially protecting public against CHE.

Background: Healthcare stakeholders have a great interest in the adoption and use of electronic personal health records (ePHRs) because of the potential benefits associated with them. Little is known, however, about the level of adoption of ePHRs in Canada and there is limited evidence concerning their benefits and implications for the healthcare system. This study aimed to describe the current situation of ePHRs in Canada and explore stakeholder perceptions regarding barriers and facilitators to their adoption.Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive study design, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews between October 2013 and February 2014 with 35 individuals from seven Canadian provinces. The participants represented six stakeholder groups (patients, ePHR administrators, healthcare professionals, organizations interested in health technology development, government agencies, and researchers). A detailed summary of each interview was created and thematic analysis was conducted.Results: We observed that there was no consensual definition of ePHR in Canada. Factors that could influence ePHR adoption were related to knowledge (confusion with other electronic medical records [EMRs] and lack of awareness), system design (usability and relevance), user capacities and attitudes (patient health literacy, education and interest, support for professionals), environmental factors (government commitment, targeted populations) and legal and ethical issues (information control and custody, confidentiality, privacy and security).Conclusion: ePHRs are slowly entering the Canadian healthcare landscape but provinces do not seem well-prepared for the implementation of this type of record. Guidance is needed on critical issues regarding ePHRs, such as ePHR definition, data ownership, access to information and interoperability with other electronic health records (EHRs). Better guidance on these issues would provide a greater awareness of ePHRs and inform stakeholders including clinicians, decision-makers, patients and the public. In turn, it may facilitate their adoption in the country.

This commentary reflects upon the article along three broad lines. It reflects on the theoretical choices and omissions, particularly highlighting why it is important to adapt the multiple streams framework (MSF) when applying it in a socio-political context like Vietnam’s. The commentary also reflects upon the analytical threads tackled by Ha et al; for instance, it highlights the opportunities offered by, and raises questions about the centrality of the Policy Entrepreneur in getting the policy onto the political agenda and in pushing it through. The commentary also dwells on the implications of the article for development aid policies and practices. Throughout, the commentary signposts possible themes for Ha et al to consider for further analysis, and more generally, for future research using Kingdon’s multiple streams theory.

Many public policy programs fail to translate ambitious headlines to on-the-ground action. The reasons for this are many and varied, but for public administration and management scholars a large part of the gap between ambition and achievement is the challenge associated with the operation of the machinery of government itself, and how it relates to the other parties that it relies on to fulfill these outcomes. In their article, Carey and Friel set out key reasons why public health scholars should seek to better understand important ideas in public administration. In commenting on their contribution, I draw out two critical questions that are raised by this discussion: (i) what are boundaries and what forms do they take? and (ii) why work across boundaries? Expanding on these key questions extends the points made by Carey and Friel on the importance of understanding public administration and will better place public health scholars and practitioners to realise health outcomes.

The study of decentralization in Fiji shows that increasing capacities is not necessarily related to increasing decision space of local officials, which is in contrast with earlier studies in Pakistan. Future studies should address the relationship among decision space, capacities, and health system performance.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) World Health Report 2010, "Health systems financing, the path to universal coverage," promoted universal health coverage (UHC) as an aspirational objective for country health systems. Yet, in addition to the dimensions of services and coverage, distribution of coverage in the population, and financial risk protection highlighted by the report, the consideration of the budget constraint should be further strengthened in the ensuing debate on resource allocation toward UHC. Beyond the substantial financial constraints faced by low- and middle-income countries, additional considerations, such as the geographical context, the underlying country infrastructure, and the architecture of health systems, determine the feasibility, effectiveness, quality and cost of healthcare delivery. Therefore, increased production and use of local evidence tied to the criteria of health benefits, equity, financial risk protection, and costs accompanying health delivery are needed so that to highlight pathways and acceptable trade-offs toward UHC.

When I wrote "Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health,"1 my primary intention was to fuel the interdisciplinary dialogue on norms, politics, and power that had been started in this journal by others. Considering the five insightful comments, 2-6 responding to my article, I think I can claim at least that: the dialogue continues, as it should.

As part of strategic initiatives focusing on building a research oriented culture, some healthcare institutions offer clinical staff monetary rewards for doing research. The question is if the promise of extra pay is effective as a management tool when trying to increase clinical research activity: Although it is well-documented that academics respond to the prospect of long-term financial gains, 1, 2 it has not been previously studied if a moderate one-time financial incentive can increase research activity of clinical staff. A proof-of-concept study was carried out to study if it was possible to develop a "supply curve for research publications" that reflected the effects of monetary incentives combined with other initiatives for facilitating research.