​Aloys Zongo, Joel Arthur Kiendrebeogo, Willem van Put, Bruno Meessen (on behalf of the working group on Health System & Fragility)

A worrying deterioration of the security situation is underway in several Francophone African countries. Other countries have been stuck for years in a state of instability. The number of so-called 'fragile' contexts is widening. A working group was set up on ‘Collectivity’ to reflect on the issue and propose activities that would help address it. Its members call us to action. In this blog post, they present their initiative.

The concept of fragility refers to a situation where the state structure lacks the political will and / or the capacity to provide people with the basic functions required to reduce poverty, promote development, and ensure security and human rights. In its latest Africa's Pulse report, the World Bank recalls that Africa is particularly concerned: 53% of the fragile contexts in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa. And among these, we will find almost all the countries of Francophone Africa.

Insecurity is growing in the Sahel region as a result of abuses committed by various terrorist groups (as in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, and around Lake Chad). And even more worryingly, inter-community violence has increased. Burkina Faso and Mali have been particularly affected by this situation in recent weeks.

The links between insecurity and health are numerous. The combination of "epidemics and conflict" is particularly threatening, as evidenced by the Ebola virus epidemic that has been raging in North Kivu since August 2018 and has already registered 751 deaths. The response to this epidemic is particularly complicated by conflict, political instability, deterioration of the health system and distrust of the population. Beyond the Ebola epidemic, the entire health system is under threat.
​
Is it not time to call things by their name? Committed as we are to development initiatives (eg Universal Health Coverage), are we not ignoring the dynamics of fragility in our countries?

Health systems and fragility

There is a rich literature on health systems in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Unfortunately, the French-speaking world is generally absent from the debate. As we have highlighted in our concept note, national and international actors engaged in the development of health systems in Francophone Africa are relatively silent on the issue. The analysis-grid of the fragile state has been very little applied by researchers to French-speaking Africa and the Sahel countries in particular. This lack of attention coupled with a lack of scientific knowledge jeopardizes our collective action and could jeopardize the achievement of sustainable development goals. There is a huge need for relevant empirical analyses to drive action in our countries, in the Sahel region or Central Africa.

All the pillars of the health system are likely to be negatively affected by the ongoing weakening, with the consequent disruption of our already underdeveloped health systems. Let's just talk about some challenges:

1. The inability to provide health services to a large part of the population: for example, because of insecurity, the advanced strategies for vaccination are not carried out, hence the risk of epidemics occurring. Added to this is the closure of many health centers, the abandonment of positions by some health workers, the inaccessibility of some refugee sites by humanitarian NGOs.
2. Failure of the reference system / counter reference. In Burkina Faso, for example, ambulances were targeted by terrorists, preventing evacuations in some localities. Moreover, even moving from one locality to another is not without danger, as illustrated by (even if it remains an isolated case) the fate of a pregnant woman and her companion who died, from terrorist attacks while traveling to a health center to give birth.
3. The lack or insufficiency of financial resources, infrastructure, equipment, human resources, medicines and other health products for quality health services. Indeed, insecurity leads, on the one hand, a reallocation of public budgets to reinforce security, on the other hand, a reduction in economic growth. In Guinea, for example, the Ebola virus epidemic has led to a reduction in economic growth (it was 0.5% in 2014 against a forecast of 4.5% according to the World Bank). As for Burkina Faso, the national budget allocated to the Ministry of Health decreased from 12.81% (of the total budget) in 2014 to 10.70% in 2018 - This has led to a reduction in investments in the health system.
4. The failure of the supply chain of medicines and other health products. Insecurity negatively affects the already fragile supply chain of medicines and other health products. Indeed, because of the inaccessibility of certain localities due to insecurity, the supply is interrupted or delayed. This causes prolonged ruptures with consequent morbidity and mortality of diseases.
5. The failure of health information systems. For example, because of difficulties to travel and closure of some health facilities, epidemiological surveillance data and monthly average consumption of drugs and other health products, immunization reports are no longer transmitted or are late. This negatively affects the planning of input orders (medicines, reagents, vaccines, etc.) at the central, intermediate and peripheral (district) levels, as well as the surveillance and management of epidemics / diseases.
6. The poor quality of governance / regulation of the system. Indeed, all activities of coordination, supervision and monitoring of health services in the field are no longer effective in all districts due to insecurity. As reported by a supervisor in Burkina Faso, "I was asked to do the supervision by telephone, WhatsApp or Messenger, given the physical inaccessibility of certain areas". But do telephone networks always allow this kind of solution?

The case of each fragile context is particular. Insecurity is far from being the only problem. The links between fragility and health system performance are of course complex and certainly not unidirectional. Thus, those who join the armed struggle often come from communities that feel neglected by public services and / or who no longer trust the state; which makes public action even more difficult.

Establishment of a working group on "Collectivity"

At a recent workshop organized by several communities of practice at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, researchers and practitioners discussed this issue. At the end of the discussions, the participants proposed to launch a multi-stakeholder process on the subject. A call for applications has been launched on Collectivity. Together, we produced a concept note that proposes an action program that covers a first year.

Our ambition is to launch a process so that the different actors (political decision-makers, civil society, private sector, researchers, technical and financial partners, etc.) involved in strengthening the health systems of the Francophone concerned countries recognize the reality of fragility in these countries,  in order to identify proven or promising approaches to address it. Of course, every fragile context is unique and dynamic; the solutions will have to be local and adapted. But it is not impossible that some health interventions, still too little generalized (e.g. community health workers, free health care for a basic package of services), appear particularly relevant, not only from a public health perspective, but also as a strategy to restore trust between Nation States and their people.

We are aware of raising sensitive issues. That's why we need to build a strong and effective partnership between policy makers, practitioners and researchers. The process we are proposing is also part of the effort developed by our Communities of Practice for nearly ten years now. We want to prove that collective and systemic learning is possible even in health systems affected by fragilty.

We invite you to read our concept note. As you understand, we are now looking for people and actors who want to support the initiative.

From April 16-20, 2012, two Communities of Practice - "Performance Based Financing" and "Financial Access" - gathered at a workshop in Bujumbura to discuss "Improving financial access to health care: the potential contributions of performance based financing." The workshop was largely built around the experience of Burundi - the first country to have merged its selective “free healthcare” policy (children under 5 and pregnant women)and performance-based financing (PBF) policy. Seeing and hearing about this original experience firsthand allowed participants to identify ways to improve the fee exemption policies existing in the health sector in their own countries.

Dr. Hamidou Oum Ramatou Ganda (HR), Director of the Organization of Care at the Ministry of Public Health of Niger answered Bruno Meessen (BM)’s questions.

BM: in 2006, Niger set up an ambitious free Caesarean-section and healthcare for under five children. During the workshop, you shared with us the difficulties this policy has encountered. You spoke of a national conference held in March around the fee exemption policy in Niger (the final declaration entitled "Free health care in Niger is seriously ill, let’s save it" is available in French here). What was the motivation for this conference?

RH: We realized that the level of government debt, which is the third-party payer for the fee exemption system, towards health facilities, is piling up. It is unable to make reimbursements; moreover there is no verification system in place. It was necessary to identify the bottlenecks and try to find solutions to sustain the health care fee exemption strategy.

The first bottleneck identified was financing. Beyond the public budget line, which does not cover all costs, there is no other source of funding. One goal of the workshop was to advocate for finding other financial means to continue the fee exemption policy. We also pointed out management problems, whether over-billing or the method used to reimburse health facilities. Finally, we also discussed the problem of drug supply and consumables, for it is only after having been reimbursed that health facilities can order and buy more drugs. Because of the lack of reimbursement, health facilities are running out of cash, and this creates either stock-outs or debts to private suppliers. As a result, the performance of health facilities is compromised in terms of effective provision of their package of activities.

One of the particularities of the national conference was to be multisectoral.

Indeed, we tried to bring together all stakeholders: beneficiaries, senior officials in the health sector, but also representatives of local governments, civil society, NGOs, technical and financial partners, and all other ministries directly or indirectly involved in the “free healthcare” policy: these include the ministries of education, labor ... We were 178 participants gathered together to highlight problems and outline solutions.

What progress has been made since the conference?

We are studying the most urgent issue, i.e. the reimbursement of the arrears that the state owes to health facilities. Moreover, all the recommendations from the conference are being converted into a roadmap with timelines and responsibility levels identified. It is followed closely by a committee that was established by a ministerial decree. This committee’s mandate is to ensure that all recommendations are implemented. This committee is headed by the deputy secretary general of the Ministry of Public Health, who must also report to the Prime Minister at least once a month. There political commitment is quite strong.

After this workshop in Bujumbura, would you have any additional recommendations besides those already made ​​at the National Conference?

I think we can already try to apply the system of verification and validation of invoices to our free healthcare, as it exists in PBF. This can be done without waiting for the national scale-up of PBF implementation. As for PBF, we are still in the study phase. We can apply PBF’s verification system to improve the free healthcare strategy, paying only the actual costs incurred and adjusting the system. To me, this is the main lesson.

Traduction: Emmanuel Ngabire

Du 16 au 20 avril 2012, les Comités de Pratique “Financement basé sur la Performance” et « Accès Financier » se sont retrouvées à Bujumbura autour de la question « Amélioration de l’accès financier aux soins de santé : quels peuvent êtres les apports du financement basé sur la performance ? ». L’atelier étant en grande partie construit autour de l’expérience du Burundi – premier pays à avoir fusionné sa politique de gratuité sélective (enfants de moins de 5 ans et femmes enceintes) et sa politique de financement basé sur la performance (FBP). L’examen de cette expérience originale a permis aux participants d’identifier des pistes d’amélioration des politiques de gratuité déjà en place dans leur propre pays.

La Dr Hamidou Oum Ramatou Ganda, Directrice de l’Organisation des Soins au Ministère de la Santé Publique du Niger a répondu aux questions de Bruno Meessen.

BM : En 2006, le Niger a mis en place une politique ambitieuse de gratuité des césariennes et des soins pour les enfants de moins de cinq ans. Durant l’atelier, vous avez partagé avec nous les difficultés rencontrées par cette politique. Vous nous avez parlé d’une conférence nationale organisée en mars autour de la politique de gratuité au Niger (la déclaration finale intitulée « La gratuité des soins au Niger est gravement malade, sauvons-la » est accessible ici). Quelles étaient les motivations de cette conférence?

HR : Nous nous sommes rendus compte que le système de la gratuité au Niger engendrait beaucoup de dettes de l’Etat, qui est le tiers-payant. Il n’arrive pas à rembourser ; du reste il n’y aucun système de contrôle de cette gratuité. Il fallait identifier ce que nous avons appelé les goulots d’étranglement et essayer de trouver les solutions pour pérenniser la stratégie de gratuité.

Un premier goulot d’étranglement est le financement. En dehors de la ligne budgétaire qui ne couvrait pas tous les coûts, il n’y  aucune autre source de financement. Un des buts de l’atelier était donc de faire un plaidoyer pour trouver les moyens financiers pour continuer la gratuité. On a aussi mis le doigt sur les problèmes de gestion, que ce soit la surfacturation ou le mode de remboursement des formations sanitaires. Enfin, nous avons aussi discuté le problème de l’approvisionnement en médicaments et consommables. En effet, ce n’est qu’après avoir été remboursées que les formations sanitaires peuvent commander et acheter leurs médicaments. Par manque de remboursement, elles sont au bord de l’asphyxie en matière de trésorerie. Cela génère des ruptures de stocks ou des dettes envers les centrales d’achat privées. Cela affecte l’exécution par les formations sanitaires de leurs paquets d’activités.

Une des particularités de cette conférence était d’être multisectorielle…

En effet, nous avons essayé de réunir toutes les parties prenantes, depuis les bénéficiaires de soins jusqu’aux cadres de la santé, en passant par les élus locaux, la société civile, les ONG, les partenaires techniques et financiers, tous les autres ministères qui participent de loin ou de près à la « gratuité » : les ministères éducation, de la fonction publique… Nous étions 178 participants, réunis ensemble pour mettre le doigt sur les problèmes et ébaucher les solutions.

Quels ont été les développements depuis la conférence ?

Nous sommes en train d’étudier le dossier le plus urgent : celui du remboursement des arriérés que l’Etat a auprès des structures de santé.

Par ailleurs, toutes les recommandations sorties de la conférence sont en train d’être converties en une feuille de route avec des échéances et des niveaux de responsabilité identifiés. Elle est suivie de près par un comité qui a été établi par un arrêté ministériel. Ce comité doit s’assurer que toutes les recommandations soient mises en œuvre. Ce comité est dirigé par le secrétaire général adjoint du Ministère de la Santé Publique, qui doit rendre compte au moins une fois par mois au Ministre, qui doit aussi rendre compte au Premier Ministre. Nous avons un engagement politique assez fort.

Après cet atelier à Bujumbura, auriez-vous des recommandations à formuler en plus que celles déjà émises lors de la Conférence Nationale ? 

Je pense que l’on peut déjà essayer d’appliquer le système de vérification et de validation des factures, tel qu’il existe dans le système du FBP, à notre système de gratuité. Cela se peut se faire sans attendre que le FBP se mette en place à l’échelle du pays. Pour le FBP, nous sommes en effet encore en phase d’étude. On peut déjà appliquer ce système de vérification, pour améliorer la gratuité, ne payer que les coûts réels et assainir le système. A mes yeux, c’est la principale leçon.