Financing Health in Africa - Le blog
  • Home
  • Bloggers
  • Collaborative projects
  • Join our COPs
  • Resources
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Scaling up your Results-Based Financing scheme: a progression on five dimensions

3/1/2017

5 Commentaires

 
Bruno Meessen
How should one understand scaling up a results-based financing (RBF) scheme? One of the main lessons from the “Taking Results Based Financing from Scheme to System” research program is that scaling up is much more than just increasing the population or health facilities covered by your scheme. Our proposition is that there are at least five dimensions to be considered when trying to understand scale up.

Scaling up an intervention is traditionally understood as expanding its geographical coverage: about moving from a limited area to an entire region or country.  This is not incorrect – but it only captures part of the reality of  scale up, especially when you deal with a complex health care financing intervention such as an RBF scheme.

Five dimensions

For our research on scaling up RBF we identified at least five dimensions along which programs could be scaled up.

Population coverage: ‘Scale up’ along this dimension is about covering more people. A country can achieve this in several ways.  It can extend the intervention to new geographical areas. This is for instance what Rwanda did between 2002 and 2006, by accepting a growing number of partners (HealthNet International, Cordaid, the BTC) to start piloting new projects in different provinces.  A country can also progress on this dimension by covering more socio-economic groups. This is for instance what a country can do with its health equity funds by progressively widening the eligibility criteria (e.g. going from targeting the poorest 5% to covering the poorest 40%). It is also possible to progress on  population coverage by removing demographic restrictions – for instance, you move from a PBF scheme focused on services

Picture
for children under five to a scheme covering the adult population as well. Eventually, you can also achieve progress  by extending the scheme to other groups – for instance, by allowing migrants to access services – this may not just be applicable to foreigners but also  with internal migrants in countries where entitlements are linked to residency (e.g. China).

Service coverage: ‘Scale up’ along this dimension is about expanding the provision of services. A country can do this  in different ways. First, it is possible to increase the types of services covered by the scheme – for instance, you start with a voucher scheme focusing on safe deliveries and then  extend it to family planning. You can also increase service coverage just  by increasing the number of facilities implementing RBF (from 20 health centres to 100). Third, you can expand the eligibility criteria in terms of  the types of health facilities allowed to affiliate (e.g. from a scheme involving only public facilities to one including private facilities as well). Fourth, you can organize your progression by  levels of health facilities (e.g. from primary health centers only to referral hospitals as well). All these paths have different implications in terms of technical development, funding, engagement with stakeholders…

Health system integration:  progress along this dimension occurs by moving from RBF schemes first introduced as pilot projects with external funding, outside of the normal flows and procedures in place to manage resources in the health system to being fully integrated into the national health system. The extent to which the solution is incorporated into the routine functioning of the health system is key for its sustainability. Here again, the progression can develop in various manners. The easiest way to approach this complex process is to adopt the six building blocks framework of WHO: to what extent is the RBF scheme is integrated into the national policy and governance system; is the funding coming from the public budget or is it solely from donors; is the RBF program using the routine information system…  

Cross-sectoral diffusion: our intention here is to examine changes outside the health sector that are triggered by RBF-related processes. Both at  global and country levels, the rapid development of the results-based logic in the health sector has created momentum for results based approaches in other sectors (e.g. education). We believe that such an expansion can also be understood as the  scheme gaining more scale.  

Expansion of knowledge: Knowledge about RBF is still scant, as the approach is still in its infancy. We see ‘scale up’ of knowledge as progress in various attributes of knowledge. This can happen in different ways; for example, developing new knowledge enables a shift from basing new policies and actions on intuition, to explicit hypotheses, and eventually to evidence. Another aspect of integration of knowledge relates to shifting the locus of control to internal actors. In the case of RBF, this may mean that knowledge held by international consultants is transferred to  Ministry of Health staff. The Cameroonian research team generated very interesting evidence in this respect. Another type of knowledge development is moving from a theoretical understanding to one rooted in practical experience. Accordingly, the ultimate state of mastery of RBF knowledge could lie in the capacity to revise RBF, optimize its benefits, extract its most powerful features, and abandon its weak aspects.

Why these five dimensions matter?

Our hypothesis is that adopting such a five dimensional view will help us understand challenges we face when developing  RBF interventions. Let’s illustrate with two cases.

Chad started a PBF pilot project in 2011. On the first two dimensions (population and service coverage),  the pilot was  quite ambitious and in less than 2 years, Chad made significant progress. Unfortunately, progress was much less swift as for the ‘health system integration’ and ‘knowledge‘ dimensions. A key determinant was the insufficient buy-in from key national policy stakeholders. Due to this, progress on the population and service coverage dimensions was actually very vulnerable and when the World Bank project stopped, this coverage vanished. For more information on this interesting case, we recommend you to read the related policy brief, here.

I was recently invited to  Benin – one of the few countries which has achieved full scale up in terms of population coverage – all  districts today are covered by a PBF program.  Service coverage is quite extensive as well – and the country still plans progress at this level (with some extension to private-for-profit providers). This is a major achievement, we shall all acknowledge that. How does Benin fare with respect to  the  other dimensions? Well, less well. At the time of my visit (October 2016), there was not yet any national PBF unit and there was no one harmonized national policy. So the population was  actually covered by two different projects. This is again a source of vulnerability. My recommendation to Benin was to move much faster on the dimension ‘health system integration’, as there was still room for significant progress on this dimension.

This lack of progress on the ‘health system integration’ dimension is indeed problematic: my hypothesis is that progress on this dimension is key to ensure the sustainability of your policy. If your policy is not harmonized and co-funded by the government (two traits, among others, characterizing a well-integrated scheme), the scheme (and the population coverage) is more vulnerable to setbacks – for instance, a donor pulling out from the policy could jeopardize the population coverage. Countries like Rwanda and Burundi have been very good on such integration of their PBF schemes into  national policy (and their Universal Health Coverage strategy). This is one of the reasons explaining the resilience of the PBF policy in both countries. The same argument applies to Cambodia or Armenia.

I acknowledge that the recognition that scale up is much more than expanding population coverage generates more questions than answers. For instance, one may wonder on which dimension should a country progress first? What is the right path along which to progress on each dimension (is it ‘smart’ to start with a PBF focused on HIV/AIDS and then broaden the benefit package)?

I will come back in another blog with some reflections on that. First, I will have to present you how we study the policy process of scaling up RBF.  As you will see, succeeding one’s scaling up is about going through a sequence of four main phases.


The "Taking Results Based Financing from Scheme to System” research program was coordinated by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, with support from the Norwegian development agency Norad and in collaboration with the WHO Department of Health Governance and Financing and the Institute of Tropical Medicine.

5 Commentaires
Godelieve van Heteren
3/1/2017 03:44:23 pm

Really appreciate this attempt to make more sense of the complex, multidimensional processes of scaling. To think through this 'complexity' has strong implications for policy strategies (when does what make sense, what order of things is most productive etc.). Will be great to see this multidimensional thinking further loaded/illustrated with the various country examples. So thanks a lot!

Répondre
Arjanne Rietsema link
3/2/2017 09:24:13 am

The spiderweb helps understanding the various elements. Going to share it with the MOH colleagues in Zimbabwe. @Cordaid has been the implementer of RBF in 18 Rural Districts since 2012. The Government scaled up RBF to all Rural Districts in 2014 with a different implementer. RBF appears in the National Strategy and also in the National Budget. However, people still speak of RBF as a project. How do we move from project to a way of financing health services is the question.

Répondre
Erik Josephson
3/8/2017 03:42:45 pm

Hi Arjanne, this is a very interesting point that you make about Zimbabwe which has pertinence to many settings. Do you have any observations as to why people in Zimbabwe still speak of RBF as a project despite it appearing in the national strategy and the government being a major funder?

Répondre
Arjanne Rietsema link
3/10/2017 09:05:05 am

These are my observations and I'd be happy if these were critiqued by colleagues involved in RBF in Zim! I see that we continue to work in silos. I can think of various reasons. One is that we are all comfortable in our silos. It seems easier to organise interventions that target one issue than to organise a system with all its components. Could it be that we are afraid of loosing control? Afraid of having to share resources? Are we not creative enough? I give an example. The pooled donor fund in Zim is organised in pillars. MNCH-N, SRHR, HRH, Medicine and Supply, RBF, Health Policy &Planning, M&E and coordination and Technical Support. The workplan obviously has several overlapping areas. The RBF pillar is not linked to the others and hence it is seen as expensive. If people would be open to look at RBF as a means to improve the indicators in the other pillars, we would make important savings. We need to understand the principle of decentralisation better and trust that health facilities can manage their affairs. Another example, World Food Programme contributes to food for pregnant mothers in waiting mother homes. They buy supplies, put them in warehouses and distribute them to health facilities. Adding resources to the RBF envelope however, would enable the health facilities to buy food locally. It would not only be much cheaper than the WFP trucks going round, but it would also support local economy. When I raised the issue, the reply was that HDF donors did not have to pay for the cost of the food distribution, so why worry... But somebody pays, right? And all those management costs could be saved and go to the target group. The Global Fund is another story, possibly for another discussion! Bruno always hammers on the Theory of Change. Perhaps, we need to think through the required change much better and target all actors in the system before we start RBF.

Mazhar Hussain link
3/3/2017 09:07:57 am

Very interesting and enlightening piece. Thanks.

Répondre



Laisser un réponse.


    Our websites

    Photo
    Photo
    Photo

    We like them...

    SINA-Health
    International Health Policies
    CGD

    Archives

    Septembre 2019
    Juin 2019
    Avril 2019
    Mars 2019
    Mai 2018
    Avril 2018
    Mars 2018
    Février 2018
    Janvier 2018
    Décembre 2017
    Octobre 2017
    Septembre 2017
    Août 2017
    Juillet 2017
    Juin 2017
    Mai 2017
    Avril 2017
    Mars 2017
    Février 2017
    Janvier 2017
    Décembre 2016
    Novembre 2016
    Octobre 2016
    Septembre 2016
    Août 2016
    Juillet 2016
    Avril 2016
    Mars 2016
    Février 2016
    Janvier 2016
    Décembre 2015
    Novembre 2015
    Octobre 2015
    Septembre 2015
    Août 2015
    Juillet 2015
    Juin 2015
    Mai 2015
    Avril 2015
    Mars 2015
    Février 2015
    Janvier 2015
    Décembre 2014
    Octobre 2014
    Septembre 2014
    Juillet 2014
    Juin 2014
    Mai 2014
    Avril 2014
    Mars 2014
    Février 2014
    Janvier 2014
    Décembre 2013
    Novembre 2013
    Octobre 2013
    Septembre 2013
    Août 2013
    Juillet 2013
    Juin 2013
    Mai 2013
    Avril 2013
    Mars 2013
    Février 2013
    Janvier 2013
    Décembre 2012
    Novembre 2012
    Octobre 2012
    Septembre 2012
    Août 2012
    Juillet 2012
    Juin 2012
    Mai 2012
    Avril 2012
    Mars 2012
    Février 2012
    Janvier 2012
    Décembre 2011
    Novembre 2011
    Octobre 2011

    Tags

    Tout
    2012
    Accountability
    Aid
    Alex Ergo
    Assurance Maladie
    Bad
    Bamako Initiative
    Bénin
    Bruno Meessen
    Burkina Faso
    Burundi
    Civil Society
    Communauteacute-de-pratique
    Communauté De Pratique
    Community Of Practice
    Community Participation
    Conference
    Cop
    Course
    Couverture Universelle
    CSU
    Déclaration De Harare
    Divine Ikenwilo
    Dr Congo
    économie Politique
    élections
    équité
    Equity
    Fbp
    Financement Basé Sur Les Résultats
    Financement Public
    Fragilité
    Fragility
    Free Health Care
    Global Fund
    Global Health Governance
    Gratuité
    Gratuité
    Health Equity Fund
    Health Insurance
    ICT
    Identification Des Pauvres
    Isidore Sieleunou
    Jb Falisse
    Jurrien Toonen
    Kenya
    Knowledge-management
    Kouamé
    Leadership
    Mali
    Management
    Maroc
    Maternal And Child Health
    Médicaments
    Mise En Oeuvre
    Mutuelle
    National Health Accounts
    Ngo
    Niger
    Omd
    OMS
    Parlement
    Participation Communautaire
    Pba
    Pbf
    Plaidoyer
    Policy Process
    Politique
    Politique De Gratuité
    Politique De Gratuité
    Post Conflit
    Post-conflit
    Private Sector
    Processus Politique
    Qualité Des Soins
    Qualité Des Soins
    Quality Of Care
    Recherche
    Redevabilité
    Reform
    Réforme
    Research
    Results Based Financing
    Rwanda
    Santé Maternelle
    Secteur Privé
    Sénégal
    Société Civile
    Uganda
    Universal Health Coverage
    User Fee Removal
    Voeux 2012
    Voucher
    WHO

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.