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

The Health Financing Progress Matrix

1/18/2021

8 Commentaires

 
Interview by Joel Arthur Kiendrebeogo

Last December, the WHO released its Health Financing Progress Matrix (HFPM), a new tool to assess country health financing systems against a set of evidence-based benchmarks, framed as nineteen desirable attributes. Each attribute represents one critical element of a health financing system and signals the direction in which institutions, policies and their implementation need to develop in order to make progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). Health Financing in Africa has interviewed Matthew Jowett, who leads this program of work at WHO Geneva. 
Photo
Joel Arthur Kiendrebeogo: The WHO has a history of producing health financing frameworks to guide analysis or evaluation. You also produce guidelines, which are more prescriptive. Where does this new tool stand? What is its added value for the health financing community and countries?

Matthew Jowett: Excellent question; there is always a risk that as more and more information and guidelines are produced, the harder it becomes for people to digest. We hope the matrix adds value by crystallizing all our thinking into one overarching product – this is the first time we have developed a standardized, largely qualitative assessment of health financing systems. In this sense the HFPM  is not just a new, separate product, but rather one that distills into one place the key thinking across all our work. We think that the HFPM will help to communicate our ideas and recommendations more clearly, facilitate focused discussion and prioritization of future policies, and of course provided a standard approach to monitoring progress over time.

Some of the previous frameworks have not been used systematically by countries. What makes you think that countries will be more interested in this tool? Do you have any specific actions planned for countries in this regard?

WHO’s work has always focused on “how to think about health financing”, supporting countries to ask the right questions, which is easier said than done, but essential for the development of reforms which work. This product goes further, based on the belief that we currently know a lot about what matters and what works in health financing for countries to progress towards UHC. This is not to say a country must do x, or y, but we know a lot from global experience about the direction of travel which matters if countries really want to deliver on UHC; this knowledge is summarized in the HFPM.

In terms of specific actions for countries, this can only be defined locally, and we are in discussion with a growing number of countries about how the findings of a matrix assessment can feed into their annual policy cycle process. We are also discussing with several technical agencies the potential to use HFPM assessments in their own planning processes, as well as to further improve coordinated technical assistance .
 
The HFPM is supposed to allow country assessments to be produced within short timeframes and more frequently. What would be the ideal periodicity for conducting assessments? Do you think that it is relevant to some specific moments in the policy cycles?

Our vision is that the HFPM could be updated annually; it is pitched as a tool which captures only the core aspects of health financing which matter, with other assessments required for deep-dive diagnostics on specific topics. This focus means that the HFPM is shorter than other, more comprehensive assessments, and hence can be conducted more frequently. By capturing shifts in policy directions, and assessing whether these are consistent with benchmarks of good practice, the HFPM can provide more frequent feedback to policy makers, rather than waiting five years for the next assessment. Ideally, HFPM assessments are used to feed into annual sector review processes; beyond this, they can of course directly feed into the development of health financing strategies, mid-term reviews etc.   
 
An innovation that follows the HFPM is the global knowledge database where assessments would be uploaded. Can you tell us a bit more about it? Who will manage this platform on a daily basis? 

The global knowledge database (not yet public) is currently managed by WHO. It provides a way for countries to see, in a structured and clear way with dashboard visualizations, areas of strength and weakness in their health financing systems; that means, policies, processes, as well as governing institutions. Countries can also see how others are performing, easily identifying their areas of strength and weakness. Once those issues identified as a priority for attention, a country can use the database to look at other countries which are doing well on this area, and see what policies and processes they have developed, and have in place which are working. This cross-fertilization of ideas in a very systematic manner, rooted in evidence, has a lot of potential for learning; note that we do not give an single overall score for countries, or any form of ranking, as we don’t believe this is helpful.

The guidance document of the HFPM also mentions that the global knowledge database could serve as a knowledge-sharing and a cross-country learning platform. For this to happen, country experts would need to communicate with each other; there will also be a need for some facilitation of the learning agenda. What are your plans at this level?

As mentioned above, there is extensive scope to use the database of HFPM assessments for the cross-fertilization of ideas between countries. We will incorporate the learning from assessments into our various capacity building products, including our first facilitated online advanced course to be launched in 2021. We also plan to build a community or practitioners around the HFPM to review trends across countries, draw out messages, discuss and debate, and to continually refine the desirable attributes of health financing which form the foundation of the HFPM. But we need partners to bring ideas and innovation to this agenda; indeed, this will be critical to make the most of the knowledge being generated.
 
My understanding is that senior health financing expertise will be a key resource for the production of the HFPM. In many low-income countries, the required technical human resources may be lacking. What are the plans for overcoming this constraint, at short and long term?

The HFPM is a technical assessment rooted in evidence and established concepts, which gives it the credibility it needs to be both objective and valued by countries. At the same time, a certain level of health financing expertise is required to conduct and complete the assessment, for example to interpret each question in light of the local context. We are committed, however, to using local or regional investigators to implement the HFPM; this is a fundamental principle of how we want to work, and we will provide the necessary backup support during the assessment process. What is clear, however, is that over the past twenty years domestic capacity in health financing has increased massively in many countries – there are now leading lights in the field of health financing in Africa and around the world; however, there is always room to improve and to learn in both directions, and so the plan is to set up small teams of experts to support the assessment process. Some countries have already used the HFPM as a basis for capacity building, generating discussion on the underlying concepts, which is a really positive development; we will also use it as the basis for course work in our new course.

The HFPM has been piloted in 20 countries. What were the main challenges you encountered during these tests? How could countries overcome them and what support could WHO or other technical and financial partners provide? What advice can you give to countries that would like to apply it?

There were many challenges during the pilot period, from the data collection template which was tricky to use, to a lack of detailed guidance on the implementation process. We also found that in a few cases local capacity was limited, although as mentioned earlier, in most cases we now find excellent health financing experts. There was a lot of variation in how assessments were conducted, with a number using the process to bring together the ministry of health and partners for discussion, while in other countries assessments were conducted by WHO staff. With the launch of HFPM 2.0, we now have much clearer recommendations on the implementation process, including a two-stage review to ensure the quality of assessments. We also received feedback regarding the need for greater technical guidance, which triggered the development of the Country Assessment Guide, a document we are quite proud of, but which can still be significantly improved, and will be continually developed as we learn from implementation.

Any country interested in applying the HFPM should contact WHO, either through our country office, regional or headquarters office, or our website, and we will connect the dots and help to take things forward.

On January 28th, the WHO and P4H organize a webinar about country implementation of the HFPM. You can register here.
 
8 Commentaires
Elisabeth Paul
1/18/2021 08:28:17 pm

Thanks for sharing! If I understand well, with HFPM you (WHO) expect to get a common tool, the equivalent of the PEFA assessment for PFM? Have you exchanged good practices with the PEFA team, notably in terms of processes and caveats to avoid in terms of chosing indicators? Could be worth it... Good luck anyway

Répondre
Matt Jowett
1/19/2021 02:11:34 pm

Thanks Elisabeth; we reviewed many other assessments as part of the HFPM, including PEFA, which is very impressive; I also the World Bank's SABER assessment of education systems very useful. Both are far more established than the HFPM, but yes this is the direction we plan to move in. Definition of indicators is one area for development in the HFPM to strengthen in the coming year; for now we have developed a set of background indicators to support the assessment process, which you can find here: https://tinyurl.com/yxd5d4p8

Répondre
Ludovic QUEUILLE
1/19/2021 04:08:55 am

A toutes fins utiles :
https://www.who.int/activities/assessing-progress-in-health-financing-for-uhc
https://www.who.int/teams/health-systems-governance-and-financing/health-financing/diagnostics/health-financing-progress-matrix
Merci,

Répondre
Ozi Nwagwu-Unyi
1/28/2021 03:49:51 pm

Kudos on launching the HFPM, and trying to adapt lessons from the pilot especially on capacity building for Health Financing assessments, and applying the matrix.
I think the HFPM is timely seeing there are quite a number of health financing programmes scaling up especially in African countries.
Are there plans however, to also strengthen or support capacity of government units coordinating country health financing initiatives to possibly conduct these assessments in future? Or is the approach for conducting the HFPM solely for external evaluations only, to then advise country health financing programmes and initiatives?

Répondre
Matt Jowett link
1/29/2021 03:55:54 pm

Thanks Ozi - another good question. The HFPM documentation is now published, and can be used in many different ways – we hope that it will. We in WHO will start to use it more systematically in our capacity building work.
In relation to country level training, this is an excellent idea; we have a very clear plan to build capacity amongst a community of experts will lead or be involved in these evaluations. Also, as discussed in the webinar yesterday, strategically there will be a need to have training-based discussion with key stakeholders around the HFPM, and in particular the desirable attributes – the users of the assessments. This will need to be, and should be, a collective effort amongst partners in health financing. We should discuss this issue in the relevant health financing groups at country level. Thanks again for your question.

Répondre
Matt Jowett
1/30/2021 11:07:41 am

And just to add, we have been working very closely the past year with the team at the African Union who are developing a Health Financing Tracker; this is a high level set of indicators, which would draw on various other sources, including the HFPM. Let's all stay in touch on this. Matt

Obioma Obikeze link
2/5/2021 10:40:48 am

I'm delighted to have participated in the recent webinar on HFPM. One would want to know if the assessment matrix (tool) can also be applicable to assessment of UHC progress at sub-national levels.

Répondre
Matt Jowett
2/15/2021 11:55:34 am

Dear Obioma, good question and one we are also thinking about, for example with our office in Nigeria which is working on the assessment now. The HFPM assessment is designed from a perspective of UHC, and UHC means all people across the health system which equates to a country/national level. Taking this "whole country health system perspective" is very important e.g. if you only look at the sub-national level, you may miss some important issues e.g. how central funds are allocated to and across sub-national levels. In many ways, the extent to which the HFPM is applicable to sub-national levels depends on how deep "decentralization" is. The more control sub-national levels have over revenue raising, pooling, purchasing etc. the more applicable HFPM assessments will be. So in principle yes it can be applied at sub-national, but there will always be a need to also look at the relationship between national and sub-national e.g. regarding resource allocation. Hope this helps. Would like to hear other's views also.

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.