Isabelle Lange
 
The  Harmonization for Health in Africa  Communities of Practice are today firmly installed in the global health landscape. The Financial Access to Health  Services  CoP (FAHS CoP) for instance gathers more than 700 experts committed to progress  towards universal health coverage through strategies such as user fee removal, health equity funds, health insurance…  In this blog, Isabelle Lange, medical anthropologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and FEMHealth researcher reports findings of her qualitative research on the FAHS CoP itself. 

 “[The FAHS CoP online group] is effective for sharing information, for networking, and for the exchange of experiences…. It’s- it’s extraordinary…. First, through the community I discovered, I had the opportunity to exchange with a lot of people and now after the workshop, I think that they are friends… I will try to maintain these relationships despite…. Even if the relationship is there and exists you have to reinforce it and care for it.”
– Policy Maker, North Africa
 
More and more actors in the global health community are tapping into the growing range of resources to widen their networks and information bases. Communities of Practice (CoPs) fit into this trend, and as they become a more popular tool in today’s information management methods in global health, there is the sense that the utilization of the Internet and strong content can bridge individuals to create or strengthen a community.  A CoP then could provide resources for knowledge sharing and potentially also for informed health policy and systems change, breaking the traditional direction of north to south information flow and communication barriers across professional silos.  However, achieving this model can be a complex process dependant on many contextual variables; exploring the processes of a particular CoP can shed light on its contribution to health policy as a mechanism for knowledge exchange. This was one of my ‘assignments’ under the FEMHealth project.  
 
The CoP FAHS and the FEMHealth: three years of collaboration 
 
The FEMHealth project was a 3-year multi-disciplinary evaluation of maternal health user fee removal policies in Morocco, Mali, Burkina Faso and Benin. I carried out a semi-external view of FAHS CoP as a part of the health policy research. The health policy analysis aimed to understand the origin of the policies in these countries and why similar measures were taken around the same time period to reduce the financial burden of childbirth costs on women and their families.  There we explored whose voices were heard, which agendas were pushed and what evidence was influential in driving these strategies.  The FAHS CoP offered an arena to deepen that research by observing the current debates and actors, in addition to serving as its own study area on this mechanism as a
vehicle for knowledge sharing and transfer.  It also offered a channel to connect the FEMHealth researchers in with the wider community interested in their topic. As FEMHealth had supported the establishment of the CoP, it was also interested in understanding how well the CoP was meeting its goals of knowledge creation and exchange. In my capacity as anthropologist working on the health policy analysis research, I attended three FAHS CoP workshops (in Bamako 2011, Marrakech 2012 and Ouagadougou 2013) and alongside informal exchanges and observation of the content during those meetings, carried out in-depth interviews with the facilitators and about 25 participants – following up with a selection of them over the years to gain an idea of the value of the CoP within their professional and personal lives. 
 
CoP workshops

According to my informants, the CoP workshops cut across geographic, disciplinary and linguistic boundaries that frequently hamper knowledge exchange amongst different profiles of actors. The magic  formula for this was, according to participants: an appropriate participant body  – with engaged, knowledgeable actors there to learn and make a difference, not  just to collect per diems; dynamic, skilled facilitation; plenty of time for informal exchange (during coffee breaks or on field visits); quality simultaneous translation between French and English; pertinent technical content; and a format that allowed for questions, discussion, learning and problem-solving, not just presentations and “being spoken at.” 
 
A particular wish of participants was to have the beneficiary community voice present in the discussions, based on the feeling that they did not have space carved out to be legitimately heard in the usual pathways of decision-making. “I think that often we meet just amongst us, actors in the ministry of health, or those who implement the program, without taking many things into account because we can’t imagine the perspectives of the user or beneficiaries of the service”, stated a West African policy maker. “They have to be there to tell us ‘what you did like this, should have been done like this instead.”  This view was echoed in reference to other stakeholder groups, including health workers and researchers, underlining the absence of meaningful cross-silo exchanges in typical/existing professional structures. 

Importance of the online community

These workshops are an important part of the FAHS CoP identity – strengthening the membership and committing to action a core tenet of the knowledge-sharing mandate of CoPs. What was clear, however, was that the CoP workshops had another special component:  the online community that served as a base to these workshops.  This group offers a continuity and home to the technical content and face-to-face exchanges that similar conferences did not have. While many of the attendees at the workshops were not CoP members (at the time), the community thread ran through the conference and made its presence:
member participants were asked to summarize debates and presentations which were posted to the 700+ subscribers, who could then continue the discussion via email and feed back to the conference attendees with further thoughts and questions.  One workshop participant who is also a community member said, “I see these face-to-face meetings (as) very important. That's what feeds new community members and that feeds the online life to the next workshop. And so there are these two mechanisms – face-to-face - that are then a good trigger for online knowledge movement and communication and discussions.” 
    
In its own right, the online community served as a valuable link to work being done in health financing on a broader scale than many members were involved in their day-to-day professional lives.  Access to grey and academic literature, unpublished experiences, and especially the diverse opinions of fellow community
members on these pieces proved to be a reason why the online group was valued and, for some, ‘boosted confidence’ in their own capacity and was considered a unique contribution to the resources available in this field. 
  
Further reflections and future steps

The enactment of policy-relevant knowledge in more dynamic ways – through interactive meetings, continuous facilitation, editorials, and community building, among others – was seen to be a strong point of the community of practice model in providing both personal and professional benefits to members. But questions remain about strategies that can create a lasting impact in a world where many are over-worked and access to a surplus of material and resources can at times seem to be a burden rather than a benefit.  The CoP offers a reference point and an organizational component to information, people and networks, which, as one agency participant says, is “the key to the whole thing…. It’s knowledge dissemination, knowledge production, capacity building.” But, he continues, “a community of practice is not just there for the management, but to build something.” Over the past three years we have watched the FAHS CoP grow into a network of more than 700 individuals and as an organization have seen its presence at numerous conferences and affiliation with other professional bodies. Discussions around its ideal future structure emphasize its need to remain non-normative, independent and be member-driven,
not only member-responsive, in order to be able to contribute to shaping an environment that constructively and innovatively brings about positive policy advances through knowledge sharing. 
 
Read the accompanying policy brief for the facilitators’ perspectives on growing a CoP, and don’t hesitate to get in touch with any thoughts or ideas.  

In this blog post, Isidore Sieleunou (co-facilitator of the "Financial Access to Health Services" Community of Practice) summarizes some of the main messages of the conference which took place in Ouagadougou (25-28 November 2013). The event was co-organized with the FEMHealth Consortium and the universities of Heidelberg and Montreal. This blog post is cross-posted from the IHP newsletter.

In 2011, the Financial Access to Health Services Community of Practice (FAHS CoP) held a workshop in Bamako to discuss the formulation and implementation of maternal health fee exemption policies. At the end of the workshop, a research agenda was put forth. Two years later, the FAHS CoP, alongside several academic partners, gathered again to take stock, this time in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

A conference to assess the effectiveness of fee exemption policies

This time, our focus was on evaluating the effectiveness of these policies. Have they had a positive impact on maternal health? Have they had a protective effect on households against catastrophic health expenses? How well have they been integrated into health systems?

Plenty of stakeholders showed interest;  more than 120 participants gathered in Ouagadougou:  high-level decision makers, front line implementers of fee exemptions, researchers, and representatives of both bilateral and multilateral, governmental and non-governmental institutions.

It turned out to be an exciting week of activities structured in an innovative 1+3+1 format (field visit on the first day, then 3 days of presentations and debates, and a training session on the last day, with each person free to choose the program of events that suited him/her). A clear highlight was the fact that the French Minister delegate for Development, Monsieur Pascal Canfin, and the Minister of Health from Burkina Faso, Monsieur Léné Sebgo, presided over the conference’s closing session – a major political recognition for our CoP! 

Policies that are working

For more than 10 years now, numerous African countries have launched fee exemption policies in an effort to achieve the MDGs, but also to reduce out-of-pocket health expenditures.

Content wise, these policies vary from one country to another. The policy in Benin, for example, covers only Caesarean sections, while Burkina Faso’s policy extends coverage to all services during the pregnancy and neonatal period, albeit with a patient co-payment equivalent to 20% of direct costs.  In between these two cases, there is a range of combinations.

A lot of the discussions in Bamako focused on the fact that most of the policies were hastily implemented at the national level, without the benefit of a pilot phase, without adequate accompanying measures, and especially without systematic monitoring and evaluation of the impact.

This situation has posed plenty of methodological challenges for researchers, but nonetheless, a number of research programs were undertaken, and against all odds, several research teams managed to document these policies. In recent years, managers and implementers of these policies have accumulated significant tacit knowledge.

The study results presented in Ouagadougou are impressive, and show that exemption policies and subsidies have:

• Resulted in higher utilisation of maternal health services, such as prenatal care and assisted deliveries;

• Shown that insofar as many wealthier women already sought out such maternal health services, the rise in utilisation is particularly obvious for poorer women. This is especially documented in the cases of Burkina Faso and Morocco; 

• Led to better access to Caesarean sections with a reduction in post-Caesarean mortality and a significant reduction in unmet need for obstetric services in Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Morocco (though in terms of the quality of the services delivered, there is some variance, as shown by a FEMHealth study in Benin);
• Lessened household out-of-pocket payments for maternity care in Burkina Faso and in Morocco.
  

We noted the interesting effect on women in one district in Burkina Faso of strengthening their decision-making power within the household (by eliminating the financial worry and providing a clear care-seeking path). Another effect was faster health seeking behaviour among women and their children.

But of course, difficulties remain, and some of the results are mixed. One study documented the problem of health worker overload in Niger. It also appears that in Benin richer women benefit the most from the free Caesarean section policy.

These challenges are most likely not inherent to the fee exemption per se, but to deficiencies in the policy’s formulation and/or implementation within the health system. Implementation challenges are unavoidable, though, and countries are learning as they go.

The clear success of the policy in a country like Burkina Faso is also directly linked to its monitoring and evaluation – its ability to produce data and use these data to adjust policy implementation accordingly.

What is in store: a new generation of more targeted fee exemptions?

In my view, the debate should no longer center on whether one is “for or against” fee exemptions, but should take a country-by-country approach instead.

In countries where fee exemptions and subsidies are working -  if the rate of assisted deliveries is high (Burkina Faso and Morocco) - or in a country where those rates were already high (Benin), it is probably time to think about the next step, “second generation models”, where several financing schemes are used in tandem to address a specific challenge.

One example is the inadequacy of exemption policies to reach some vulnerable population groups, who may face other as yet insurmountable obstacles to actually reaching a health facility. I still remember the words of a doctor from Kaya regional hospital during the field visit; “I cannot understand: services are free, but women are still not coming.” 

Given the example of the success and effectiveness of “vouchers programs” on utilisation, quality, and equity (an example from Kenya was presented at the conference), it could be interesting, for example, to pair a fee exemption with a “voucher” for the poorest women. Such a combination could strengthen fee exemption policies and make them more effective in terms of reaching the poorest and most vulnerable groups.

This conference also sounded like a (necessary) response to the recent Bonn forum on universal health coverage (UHC). During this three-day forum, a wide range of strategies targeting all dimensions of UHC (population coverage, access, and financial protection) were discussed from efficient service purchasing to insurance systems, from cash transfers to vouchers … just no mention of user fee abolition. UHC is all about responding to increasing demands for better health services, no matter what path towards the goal is chosen, keeping open all policy options, adjusting to the specific circumstances of each country. Exemption/subsidy policies are proven and cannot be left out of instruments for UHC in Africa.

In their closing words at the conference, the French Minister delegate for Development and Burkina’s Minister of Health paid tribute to the CoP’s dynamic approach, emphasizing the importance of substantive exchange among different knowledge holders in order to overcome challenges and succeed in health system reform.

Bouchra Assarag (National School of Public Health, Rabat) interviews Fabienne Richard (Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp) about a recent publication on fee exemption for maternal care.

In your article, you discuss the various policies of fee exemption for maternal care in 11 countries in Africa. What was your objective and what has been your strategy to collect information?

The article is based on a study we conducted in preparation for the meeting of the CoP financial access in Bamako in November 2011. The workshop focused on the exemption policy for maternal care. We did this preparatory work to give participants an overview of what is currently being done in various Anglophone and Francophone countries in terms of maternal health exemptions. The comparison of 11 countries in terms of coverage of care packages and financial mechanisms chosen by the countries has been a good starting point for the exchanges.

To gather the information, we first developed a grid (with one part focusing on the package of care covered by the policy and another part on the financing modalities) which we have tested in Burkina Faso. Once the grid was validated, we sent it to the 11 countries, more in particular to the person or department in charge of monitoring the exemption policy. In general, technicians of the Ministry of Health and/or the Ministry of Finance have completed the form. We sometimes used on-site researchers to validate or complete the form when some data were incomplete. We then tried to find the similarities and differences between countries.

What are the main findings of your analysis?

First, there is a wide variation in terms of covered services or types of cost covered by maternal health exemption policies. The minimum strategy, everywhere, was to make caesarian sections free, but the variations around this minimum are obviously important too: complications or not, normal births or not, post-abortion care or not, etc. The justification for a particular covered package in terms of health benefits or in terms of reduction of catastrophic expenditure is rarely made explicit in the formulation of a policy. Governments have not always allowed technicians the opportunity to make estimates and analyze the cost-effectiveness of a particular option.  Certain policies have been decided very quickly by the president in the context of an electoral campaign, which did not exactly facilitate their implementation.

Second, fee exemptions for maternal care are not the only targeted initiative to reduce financial barriers. Recent years have seen the blossoming of a number of initiatives to reduce the financial burden of certain population groups (pregnant women, children, elderly, poor, …) or patients with a certain disease (HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, …). This becomes very complex for caregivers to navigate, to know which paper to fill out in order to claim such free care. These initiatives, most of the time managed separately by different departments at the central level, are a burden to the hospital or district (specific monitoring tools, different reimbursement mechanisms, …). Some people will be doubly covered, like a child under five years old suffering from malaria, as many countries have programs for children under five as well as for malaria. But a 15 year old boy who is the victim of a traffic accident with his motorcycle in town will be far less lucky, as he doesn’t fit any category… but he needs surgery and this costs a lot… As for a forty year old woman who suffers from obstetric fistula following a difficult delivery, idem. The reply to her will be that it’s not on the list of emergency obstetric interventions.

In sum, even if fee exemption policies started from good intentions – to improve maternal health and reduce the financial burden on families, they may not achieve their goals because they have often been formulated too narrowly (selecting only caesarian section in the covered package) or because their implementation has not been adequately prepared.

A few years ago, you coordinated a collective work entitled “Reducing financial barriers to obstetric care in low-resource countries”. Which link do you see between this book and this new article? What is your personal analysis of the free maternal care policies, in terms of implementation, impact for women or children, or repercussions for health systems?

I would say not much has changed in terms of implementation of policies since writing our book: in almost all countries, there has been a gap between what was theoretically foreseen and what has actually been understood and implemented. Several factors can explain this: a fuzzy formulation of the policy (each has his own interpretation of the content of the package), a lack of monitoring of the policy and control measures to set things right if one has moved too far from the policy as it had been conceived, a lack of accompanying measures in terms of human and material resources.

My own analysis, based on observations in the field (as I’ve lived the life of frontline health staff in several African countries) is that human resources are vital for health systems and an essential element for  fee exemption policies to succeed. The state can inject millions in an exemption policy and announce that everything is free, but if in hospitals the nurses or other staff continue to accept informal payments, this will completely demolish the effect of the policy. Before launching such policies, we must think carefully on how to engage frontline staff so they can be policy stakeholders.

For the future, regarding the variety of targeted exemption policies I mentioned earlier, I really think we should join forces to achieve universal coverage. Many African groups have set up task-forces for health insurance, for example – which is positive – but sometimes with international partners without involving colleagues who manage targeted exemption policies. There is therefore still a lot of coordination work to do at the national level to synchronize efforts made by all. I’ve understood that the communities of practice received Muskoka funding from France to work on this, which is great news, as there’s plenty of work to do.

To conclude, will we see you at the conference of the Community of Practice in Ouagadougou in November?

Of course! I heard the program is of high quality. With many other researchers, including from Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Morocco, we will present the results of the FemHealth project, which focused on exemption policies in maternal health. I hope this conference will provide answers to the questions that remained unanswered after the Bamako workshop … as well as our review of 11 countries.

 Manuela De Allegri and Isidore Sieleunou

Manuella De Allegri (University of Heidelberg) and Isidore Sieleunou were in Berlin last week at the GIC Forum on Health and Social Protection. They enjoyed this conference on Universal Health Coverage, but were really surprised by the fact that user fee removal was not discussed.  An oversight or a bias?

Last week, we had the opportunity to take part in a Forum organized by the German Cooperation on Social Health Protection, the title being Universal Health Coverage: From Promise to Practice. The Forum gathered international experts across the policy, the implementation, and the research arena. Health financing “veterans” of the level of David Evans, Joe Kutzin, and Tim Evans were invited to meet experts working for the German Cooperation, their policy and implementing partners across the world, and a selected number of researchers to discuss the challenge of moving countries towards universal health coverage (UHC) and possible strategies towards this end.

The forum provided the opportunity for extensive exchange, with provocative discussions and innovative thinking characterizing the two days spent in Bonn. We definitely took home a number of inspiring ideas. Notwithstanding the number of very interesting sessions, however, we were left to wonder how it was possible to spend two days discussing UHC and not once mention user fee abolition. The forum simply overlooked the experience of countries which have recently implemented user fee abolition as an initial step towards UHC. A wide range of strategies targeting all dimensions of UHC (population coverage, access, and financial protection) were discussed from efficient service purchasing to insurance systems, from cash transfers to vouchers … just no mention of user fee abolition.

In her key note speech, Dr. Speciosa Wandira-Kazibe, the former Vice President of Uganda, repeatedly stressed that UHC is all about responding to increasing demands for better health services, no matter what path towards the goal is chosen. She insisted on keeping open to all policy options, adjusting to the specific circumstances of each country.  Therefore, we later found the omission of user fee abolition somewhat surprising considering that the evidence on the impact of user fee abolition on improved access to health services and financial protection is by now quite substantial. While it is true that some countries might have rushed into user fee abolition without carefully preparing its implementation and might have therefore encountered problems to keep up the promise of improved access to quality services, other countries, such as Ghana or Burkina Faso, have successfully worked on the careful progressive implementation of user fee abolition (or reduction, as for Burkina Faso) for selected services and/or population groups. Interestingly, such countries have explicitly implemented user fee abolition/reduction with the intent of advancing population coverage on a limited spectrum of services, while preparing further-reaching health policy reforms aimed at advancing progress towards broader UHC goals.

We were left to wonder what could motivate a community that gathers to discuss strategies towards UHC to overlook user fee abolition. One thought that immediately comes to mind is that discussions on UHC are largely dominated by what sociologists would define as culturally dominant paradigms. The concept of cultural hegemony refers to how power is indirectly reflected in the ideas that we, as society, hold to be the most prominent. It is to say that the ideas of those who enjoy power in a community receive more attention and ultimately end up being the ideas that the collectivity holds to be true. User fee abolition has largely emerged as an endogenous movement within African states, one that only recently gained explicit support from international UN agencies and the World Bank. As such, one could see it as a movement that is simply not part of the dominant paradigm, as African states are not known to be the ones who hold the most power in the international arena. One could further postulate that the natural consequence is that user fee abolition is not deemed to be worth of the same attention as vouchers or conditional cash transfers, strategies to UHC largely supported by the exogenous international community. The discourse at the forum might have simply reflected the distribution of power at the global level, with some reforms endogenous to African states, such as user fee removal, receiving less attention than those widely promoted by the international community.

Moreover, the forum devoted ample space to discussions of the link between evidence and policy, paying specific attention to the function of knowledge brokerage. The community at the forum amply engaged in discussions on the role of the encounter between research and policy and on the need for knowledge brokers to facilitate this encounter, by enhancing two-way communication between the two. Still, we are left to wonder, how can effective knowledge brokerage take place in a context dominated by cultural hegemony? How do we even start discussing the path towards UHC in a fair way if the options we bring to the table are only the ones deemed worth of discussion within the framework of a dominant paradigm? Are we doing justice to UHC if we overlook a selected set of endogenous strategies?

We have no answer, but surely many questions to reflect upon as researchers committed to the production of the evidence for policy, beyond power relations and political concerns. Personally, we are looking forward to the conference organized by the Financial Access to Health Services Community of Practice in November in Ouagadougou. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss financial strategies to enhance access to maternal and neonatal health services, beyond dominant paradigms of what may be deemed and what may not be deemed worth our attention as we all strive together towards UHC.

Yamba Kafando


From November 25-28, 2013, a workshop on maternal health fee exemption policies is being organised in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Its objective is to draw conclusions on such policies through research results and the experiences of key actors. 

For more than a decade now, a number of African countries have been implementing national fee exemption policies targeting certain services (HIV, malaria, deliveries, Caesarean sections, etc…) or specific population categories (children under 5, pregnant women, the elderly, etc…). The objective of most of these policies is to increase chances of reaching the MDGs and also to reduce financial barriers to accessing health care.

If there is one major shortcoming, however, it is that most of these policies were hurriedly implemented, began on a national scale without a pilot phase, and worse, without having designed or put in place any evaluation mechanisms to measure their effects.

Knowledge on fee exemption schemes: much production, but too little sharing and utilisation

Such highly political processes and hasty implementation present clear methodological challenges to those who wish to evaluate fee exemption schemes. And yet, many different research programs have undertaken studies on the subject and their results are now starting to become available. A number of NGOs have documented their fee exemption interventions. Managers of fee exemption schemes and front-line implementers also have important tacit knowledge that should be shared.

One common characteristic of the period in which these policies were implemented (2000-2010), is that there existed no platform in place for exchange and knowledge management among implementing countries. No doubt this at least partially explains why technical and scientific knowledge already available at the time was rarely used to improve fee exemption policies, leading to a cycle of repeating the same avoidable mistakes.

This situation did, however, lead people to realize the importance of creating such a platform for knowledge and experience sharing, and as such, the Financial Access to Health Services Community of practice (FAHS CoP) was launched.

A more scientific workshop

So it is with great pleasure – and we think a fair amount of legitimacy, that the FAHS CoP announces the upcoming workshop in Ouagadougou dedicated to the evaluation of maternal health services fee exemptions in Africa.

Many of you will remember the one held in Bamako in November 2011. With this upcoming, and most likely last CoP workshop on the topic, we feel confident we can close this chapter of knowledge production.The Ouagadougou workshop will be more scientific than Bamako was: it will allow us to highlight and share the knowledge created through studies carried out on maternal health fee exemptions by different research consortiums, including those linked to the FEMHealth project, the University of Montreal and the University of Heidelberg.

The workshop aims to bring together countries implementing maternal health fee exemptions with research teams who have been investigating these policies in Africa. The goal of this workshop will not be to judge the choices countries have made regarding maternal health fee exemptions, but rather to help them to make them more effective and efficient so as to improve the health of their populations.
 
In order to facilitate a maximum of exchange, a call for abstracts covering 10 themes has been issued not only for researchers, but also for managers and implementers of such schemes. We would like to invite you to share your experience on the topic through this blog, and also by submitting an abstract for the Ouagadougou workshop. On behalf of the Institute for Health Sciences Research (Ouagadougou), we look forward to welcoming you to Burkina Faso.

(Translation: Allison Kelley)

The next interview of our series on community participation and the Bamako Initiative is with Dr. Agostino Paganini. Agostino Paganini has an extensive experience of primary health care and emergency health care in Africa, an area in which he has been active for over forty years.  He was the manager of the Bamako Initiative Support Unit at the UNICEF HQ. The unit worked closely with African countries that had shown interest in the principles of the Bamako Initiative. In the first part of the interview we publish today, he shares his analysis of the set-up of the Bamako Initiative. Next week, we will discover his analysis of the evolution of the Bamako Initiative principles over time.

Jean-Benoît Falisse: If I am correct, you took part to the Bamako conference. It was the 38th African Regional Meeting of WHO but UNICEF also became involved. What were you doing at that time? Where was the Bamako Initiative coming from?

Agostino Paganini: At that point of time, I was working on a joint UNICEF-WHO nutrition support programme. I was based in New York and technically working for WHO. I was not there in Bamako but my experience of the event is still vivid. I remember quite well the organisational implications and all the fall-outs of this initiative of Mr. Grant. Of course, everything in this conversation could be biased, it is my own experience that I have revisited and understood over the years. At that time, Dr. Halfdan Mahler was the Director General of WHO and Mr. Jim Grant was the Executive Director of UNICEF. Both were extremely charismatic and powerful leaders and they were two major figures in the public health and health development debate. Mahler had a focus on primary health care issues with a global vision and sensitivity to political implications. Grant was much more pragmatic, he believed in that sort of 'cold war vision' where there were little chances for big progresses and therefore he believed in incremental steps, bringing up health in the political arena. After the Harare declaration [on strengthening the district health systems based on Primary health care], Grant came up with Bamako. Not necessarily, as perceived by some, as a declaration antagonistic to Harare's but maybe as a more incremental, less 'visionary', declaration. Of course, for him it was also a way to call for Africa because he wanted more resources for health organisation and child survival in Africa and he saw the declaration as a way to have them. Basically, the relation between the Bamako and Harare declarations could be seen in the context of an intellectual debate between these two giants of developmental issues.

In the context of this intellectual debate, who was pushing for the Bamako Initiative? What were the main points of consensus and divergence between the countries and/or organisations?

Alongside with the African Ministers, UNICEF promoted and lobbied for this kind of declaration – for which WHO was not especially keen. Actually, even some parts of UNICEF were not happy about this. At the policy level, what was obviously the most difficult to accept was the issue of user fees and cost-sharing. UNICEF and Mr. Grant, on the basis of what was happening in Benin and many African countries, realised that the real payer in health was not the government any more, it was not even the donor any more, it was the household. The majority of expenditures were paid out-of-pocket. The issue was therefore 'co-financing'. Yet, some people identified this idea of having people co-financing their health services with the World Bank vision on user fees and the debate became very ideological. In the proposition for the Bamako Initiative, it was suggested that people would pay something out-of-pocket. If donors were helping making the service better in terms of infrastructure, drugs availability, training and supervision of staff and monitoring mechanisms, it would be wrong that people do not contribute to the cost of delivering services (although paying less than the actual cost). However, that money would stay with people who paid, at the health centre level, and it would be controlled by the community. That was the hypothesis. The reaction from the other side was to call this opening the door to privatisation and a way to have people pay for health when health is a basic human right which cannot be sold.

Part of the Bamako Initiative is about community participation. In the interview with Susan Rifkin, she says what sparkled her interest in community participation was the experience of barefoot doctors in China. Was there anything similar in Africa? Something that convinced people in Bamako?

In the unit I was managing in New York, everybody was absolutely convinced that the biggest political change that Bamako initiative was bringing was not the money but the effort to empower the community in controlling their health centres and staff. We had the impression that the health staff had basically privatised the health system. The health system was not functioning any more. It was an unregulated private sector in which you would have to pay for everything without any control on the quality or the use of the money. For us, the Bamako Initiative was a way to strengthen the capacity of people to be part of and take part in the management of the health centre. It was not about the technical management of the health centre but about the ‘governance’ aspect of it. Was it successful? Well, in certain places like in Mali in the beginning it was quite good. Yet, I had the impression that after a while the Bamako Initiative was interpreted/considered by some of the Ministries of Health and staffs as an excuse to charge whatever they wanted with no control by the community on the money.

Community-wise, what was in place at the time of the Bamako Initiative declaration?

In some countries, there were health committees but these health committees never controlled any resource. In these countries, we could start from these committees. However, in other countries such as Guinea after Sékou Touré, there was nothing. The health system had been destroyed and with the Ministry of Health of Guinea, managing committees were set up. It was the beginning of giving substance to community participation through the co-financing and co-management of the health centres. That was the language we wanted to use; not ‘cost recovery’ but ‘community co-management and co-financing’. It was implemented in different countries and under different labels. This is a labour intensive process that requires a lot of assistance at the community-level.

The Bamako Initiative could be described as having three pillars: (1) community participation, (2) self-financing mechanisms and (3) regular supply of drugs. You already touched the first two issues, could you say a word about the regular supply of drugs?

The experience on the ground was that health centres were not used and their utilisation was incredibly low for two reasons: (1) one was linked with the infrastructure and the behaviour of the staff which were perceived as rotten and so the centres were going down and the other (2) was that there were no drugs. Medicine is perceived by the users as the key element in the therapeutic process, and this is basically true wherever you are. People were spending their money on the market, buying drugs in the unregulated market or anywhere else. It was obvious that medicine had to be available in the health centre. The health centre had to become the place not only for preventive care but also for curative services. Do not forget that the main preoccupation of UNICEF at that time was not curative care; it was mainly immunisation and child survival (which are mostly linked to preventive care). However, having people coming to the health centre because of the availability of medicine for their curative needs was an important key for preventive purposes.

I take an example: child survival and malaria were two of Africa’s very obvious problems which were not very well addressed. There were vertical programmes with antibiotics and antimalarial drugs but they were not sufficient. Having a functional health centre was seen by us as a way to move towards a much more comprehensive vision of primary health care. It was a gradual process through which health staffs were trained and health centres improved thanks to investments from donors and the government. The running costs that were not covered by the government were co-financed by the community. The key was to have a committee which would oversee the management of the money so that there was public accountability. Community participation was seen as a way to obtain accountability from the medical and managerial staff. Monitoring was also a pillar in the system because it would allow the managing committee and the staff to have a view on coverage and immunisation, number of visits, number of women who were delivering babies, etc. This way they could set objectives, discuss between the members of the committee and the health staff, find bottlenecks in the system, and eventually improve the durability, access and correct utilisation of health care.

Bruno Meessen


In this blog post, Bruno Meessen (ITM, Antwerp) revisits the gaps in the implementation of fee exemption policies in numerous African countries. He attempts to draw useful lessons for the universal health coverage agenda, for African governments, the international community and researchers. 


In 2009, at the request of UNICEF, I was fortunate to be able to coordinate a study on fee exemption policies in 6 African countries. The results were published in a supplement of Health Policy & Planning, alongside other articles on the same topic. Our multi-country study had relatively modest ambitions: we were not trying to document the impact of these policies, but rather try to understand to what extent their formulation and implementation were based on good public policy practices. Overall, our evaluation was not very positive. While the study confirmed the good intentions of country leaders to take strong measure to reduce financial barriers, it highlighted the precipitous manner in which such measures were put in place without adequate preparation (in terms of time, financing, accompanying measures, and technical expertise) for national technicians to ensure that these policies were well conceived and well implemented. We expressed concern about the consequences these weaknesses would have on the policies’ efficacy and sustainability.

This study had at least one tangible effect: it made it clear that a lot of work remained to be done in terms of sharing and spreading knowledge regarding the implementation of health financing policies. At the dissemination meeting for the study in New York, the idea for creating a community of practice around fee exemption policies was launched. In due time, the Financial Access to Health Services CoP was launched. You are likely already familiar with its work if you follow this blog.

Implementation of fee exemption policies: what we know in 2013

The topic of formulating and implementing fee exemption policies has been relatively intensely researched in the past few years. This is not only the case for the FAHS CoP as a group (note the Bamako CoP workshop in 2011, but also a forthcoming conference in Ouagadougou in November 2013), but also for several teams of researchers.  Let me specifically mention recent studies by Valéry Ridde (University of Montréal) and Sophie Witter (University of Aberdeen), two prolific authors whose work also contributed to the multi-country study.

In a very recent edition of Afrique Contemporaine (in French), the results of a mixed method research led by Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan and Valéry Ridde were published. The supplement reports on the different observations made by research teams, notably LASDEL, on fee exemption policies in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. Several noteworthy articles include one on the perceptions of various actors in Mali, a mapping of fee exemption policies in West Africa (showing that all countries have them), and a study from Niger investigating the problem of decapitalization in health centers.

The introductory synthesis is entitled “Fee exemptions in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger: public policy contradictions.” This title reflects the overall tone of the supplement. Here is an excerpt.

Fee exemptions are decisions taken at a national level, defended as sovereign, and implemented by national technicians without any particular external assistance, something rather rare in the history of health policy. But these reforms have been made hastily. The decision has been political rather than technical, announced suddenly and publically, taking not only field technicians but also those in the Ministry completely by surprise. 
                                                                                                                                               (Olivier de Sardan & Ridde 2012 - our translation)

A few months earlier, Valéry Ridde, Ludovic Queuille and Yamba Kafando had just finished the final report of their project, “Capitalizing fee exemption policies for health services in West Africa.” This project is worth mentioning for several reasons: beyond the knowledge that it generated, it had the merit of being based on country experts (Ministry of Health professionals, researchers, and NGO experts involved in fee exemption programs). The transversal study centered on 7 countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Sénégal et Togo ). It also focused on implementation. 

The book’s tone is more positive than the supplement cited above. The synthesis chapter, which is also available in English, identifies for six of the countries studied, the major problems encountered during implementation but also the innovations. An excerpt:

"While the principles underlying these policies appear to be well appreciated, health workers did not hide their dissatisfaction regarding the policies’ implementation. In Burkina Faso, they complained of a lack of medical and technical supplies, while in Senegal and Niger the complaints were regarding significant delays in reimbursement of free services provided to patients. Finally, in most cases, workers were calling for financial bonuses to compensate for increases in their clinical or administrative activities resulting from user fees exemption policies. These financial aspects of bonuses for health workers were not taken into account in any of the policies."
                                                                                                             (Ridde et al. 2012)

Elsewhere in 2012, Sophie Witter published a study on the fee exemption policy for Caesarean sections and for children under five years old in Sudan, a country little documented in international health. Her study once again highlights major weaknesses in implementation.

"The fee exemption policy for Caesarean sections and for children under five years old, launched in 2008, clearly suffered from a number of constraints that led to uneven and often poor implementation. Notable among these constraints is a lack of adequate financing and clear implementation guidelines."   
                                                                                                                                                                                                      (Witter et al 2012)

Let me make four comments before giving my own read of the situation. First, one can observe that the general tone of these studies on fee exemptions remains relatively positive. Neither the authors of these studies nor I intend to discredit these national policies. Second, these studies show that there is a certain heterogeneity in countries’ experiences: countries that have had better implementation than others have shown some good results. Third, when one identifies weaknesses in either formulation or implementation, one should not write those policies off entirely. We know that certain policies that have begun badly have later been reformed to better reach the most vulnerable. The example of Burundi – which combined its fee exemptions with its performance-based financing program– is the best known case. Fourth, it appears that countries having launched their fee exemption programs later have been able to benefit from recommendations to better prepare for the policy. This is certainly the case of Sierra Leone, even though challenges remain. 

All of that said, here we are all the same with a sample of 11 documented country experiences telling the same story: fee exemption policies in Africa over the last 10 years have been public policies launched on presidential initiative, using national resources, but formulated in haste without adequately and rigorously taking into account technical and operational considerations. Those that are under-financed are nonetheless in danger. 

 What has changed at the country level

It is important to note that these policies have marked renewed initiative among African presidents and governments to re-engage in the health sector. In a number of countries, other than health personnel salaries, the State had basically been absent in the health sector for two decades; cost recovery, the rise of the private health sector, and international assistance having left the impression that health financing could manage without public funding (well, it is also true that, to put it bluntly, State coffers were empty).

Today we are coming full circle: user fees – which will likely continue to play a role despite wide criticism – have shown their limitations; the rise of the private health sector in many countries has been poorly regulated by the State, and the global financial crisis in wealthy countries hardly paints a hopeful picture for international assistance.  But more fundamentally, economic growth is creating new financing possibilities within public budgets across the continent.  

We must, however, ensure that this re-engagement by national leaders happens in the most productive way possible, with budgets matching not only declarations, but technical rigor and long-term vision. It should be possible to build on the pledges made jointly by health and finance Ministers in Tunis in July 2012. We can also make the most of the international interest and support for Universal Health Coverage. But to build the future, we must not forget lessons from recent experience. 

Two reflections for the political agenda for UHC

A first lesson is for the ears of political leaders (if they read us!): remember that haste is a resource to use with caution when it comes to health financing. Leadership and boosts in momentum are welcome, but should not compromise the initiative itself, nor all of the health system strengthening efforts that have preceded it. UHC won’t be built on a few announcements, but through perseverance.

The lack of dialogue that accompanies political precipitation breeds unnecessary antagonism. It would be a shame for those who work tirelessly to strengthen health systems – whether they are frontline workers, implementers at the regional or national level or advisors – to become a force of opposition to UHC. The lively debate within the PBF CoP after the UN General Assembly’s resolution on UHC reflect this reality.  

There is also a lesson there for international actors advocating for UHC. It is perhaps the time to re-evaluate the relative effort you are putting into advocacy versus actual technical assistance.  Our impression is that advocacy predominates when it comes to UHC: while Twitter is buzzing, people are mobilizing in Beijing, and at the UN they are promoting UHC, the aid community is providing precious little support to UHC on the ground. We should thus not be surprised as presidents are getting on the bandwagon and the political machine is activated that they “put the cart before the horse.”

Focusing exclusively on advocacy for UHC makes sense maybe for middle-income countries – they have the financial resources and technical capacity in line with such ambitions. But in poor countries, advocacy alone is problematic. And yet it is virtually impossible to compartmentalize the world when it comes to advocacy, messages pass far and wide. 

You get my point: we are arguing for an approach with a much more context specific analysis of the challenges many African countries are facing, especially those where governance is still being strengthened. We are not, however, advocating for some super-agency for UHC; that model is outdated. We are convinced that appropriate assistance should be based on a more collaborative model that builds on the growing expertise present on the continent, such as HHA has promoted and is being implemented through communities of practice. We would be happy to see more collaboration and support, especially from the UHC flag-bearing institutions.

Ideas for researchers

Our third point addresses researchers. Thanks to your hard work, we know much more about the last ten years’ experience with fee exemptions in Africa. Of course, many questions remain, but it seems fair to say that at least in terms of retrospective studies on the formulation and implementation of country fee exemption policies, we are reaching a data saturation point. 

For some observers, these fee exemption policies are just a step on the path toward UHC. Shouldn’t that point to another research topic: how have these policies evolved and are they in-line with UHC objectives; are they actually an effective starting point on the road to UHC?  

I see at least two possible directions.

It would be interesting to pull together knowledge on the policy process, especially on the dialogue between the political and technical levels. Are they eventually able to transcend their initial lack of dialogue? Have presidents drawn lessons about the importance of this dialogue? Or on the contrary, are the same errors being repeated? If the same problems persist, what are the determinants of such political haste? What options exist for actors wishing to improve these processes? What are the lessons for the next phases toward UHC?  

We can also identify the stakes when it comes to policy design. Researchers really need to help us all reflect on how these fee exemption initiatives – often multiple in the same country - relate to other financing schemes to form a coherent strategy that provides health coverage to all. In many countries, there is a complex mix of coverage schemes: public financing (traditional or PBF), health insurance for civil servants, mutuelles for those in the informal sector, and various fee exemptions for different population groups, age ranges, health problems, and even treatment regimen! For reasons of efficiency, equity, not to mention limited available resources, it becomes critical to better harmonize health financing schemes. We could begin by documenting the situation at the country level and by identifying some potential solutions.  Can any of you help countries in this way? It will certainly be a top priority for the CoPs in 2013.

Translation: Allison Kelley

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