Supplément BMC Health Services Research: Politiques d’exemption des frais d’utilisation

Abstract:

When user fee exemptions were introduced for children under five years of age in Niger, front-line staff in the health system were not consulted in advance, and various obstacles seriously hindered the policy’s implementation. Health workers developed two types of coping strategies. The first dealt with shortcomings of the policy implementation process related to management tools, drug stocks, co-existence of the fee exemption and cost recovery systems, and, above all, supply management for medicines (ordering from private companies, issuing makeshift prescriptions). The second involved clientelism, circumvention of regulations, and misappropriation of resources. Adverse effects have arisen due to both the failings of the health system and the practices of health workers. These include a focus on the commercial management of patients, the most ‘costly’ of whom sometimes find themselves being refused treatment, patients roaming in search of medicines and treatment, and a decline in quality of care.

Voir l’article complet sur le site de BMC

Abstract:

During the last ten years, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have opted for selective user fee exemption policies, while remaining within the general framework of cost recovery. But they have each developed their own particular institutional mechanisms, different from those of their neighbour. This was the topic of a comparative research program combining both quantitative and qualitative surveys over a four-year period. This special issue presents papers setting exemption policies in the wider context of public policy and the day-to-day functioning of health systems (part 1); presenting overarching case studies (part 2); and reflecting on our methodological approach (part 3).

User fee exemption policies were introduced in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger during the first decade of this century. They cover several sector-based measures (‘free healthcare’ in everyday language), and sometimes come on top of high levels of subsidies which enabled significant reductions in the cost of certain drugs and treatments. From the late 1980s, these three countries were – and still are – subject to a comprehensive system of cost recovery at the point of delivery (a policy introduced following the Bamako Initiative), or, to be more precise, a system of partial payment of drugs and services by the user. Only a small proportion of the costs are actually recovered as the amounts charged to the users do not take salaries, investments or recurrent costs, which are all paid by the state, into account, and represent only a small percentage of the overall health budget (an order of magnitude of five percent is often cited at state level [1,2]. Nevertheless, the sums recovered by health centres enabled them to buy drugs and cover certain local expenses. However, for public health reasons, cost recovery has always been subject to a variety of sector-based exceptions, determined by the nature of the disease or intervention involved. For example, mass immunization (National Immunization Days) and routine vaccinations as part of the Extended Programme of Immunization (EPI), treatment relating to tuberculosis, leprosy, noma and Guinea worm, and measures for the prevention of epidemics all remained free of charge for users.

The Bamako Initiative also made provision for a system that waived payment for patients who were too poor to pay for their treatment, however this system has never really been implemented (with regard to Burkina Faso, cf. [3]; for other countries in the region, see [4]). This exclusion of the most vulnerable and the low health indicators in Africa, which are jeopardizing the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), explain the many criticisms of cost recovery that have mounted up within the NGOs, the research community and international organizations since the 1990s (cf. Ridde, this issue). This growing pressure for the abolition of the financial barriers to healthcare is clearly positioned within the progressive trend towards universal coverage. An international consensus has set itself the goal of ensuring that, by 2030, all populations, regardless of earnings, geographical location and gender, benefit from the coverage of 80% of basic health services, and 100% protection against the financial risks associated with direct payment [5]. This context explains why – over and above the three countries considered here and at around the same time – sector-based exemption policies were developed and implemented in a number of countries in Africa from the early years of this century [6].

Télécharger l’article complet:

Abstract:

This research on user fee removal in three African countries is located at the interface of public policy analysis and health systems research. Public policy analysis has gradually become a vast and multifaceted area of research consisting of a number of perspectives. But the context of public policies in Sahelian Africa has some specific characteristics. They are largely shaped by international institutions and development agencies, on the basis of very common ‘one-size-fits-all’ models; the practical norms that govern the actual behaviour of employees are far removed from official norms; public goods and services are co-delivered by a string of different actors and institutions, with little coordination between them; the State is widely regarded by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy. In such a context, setting up and implementing health user fee exemptions in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger was beset by major problems, lack of coherence and bottlenecks that affect public policy-making and implementation in these countries. Health systems research for its part started to gain momentum less than twenty years ago and is becoming a discipline in its own right. But French-speaking African countries scarcely feature in it, and social sciences are not yet fully integrated. This special issue wants to fill the gap. In the Sahel, the bad health indicators reflect a combination of converging factors: lack of health centres, skilled staff, and resources; bad quality of care delivery, corruption, mismanagement; absence of any social security or meaningful commitment to the worst-off; growing competition from drug peddlers on one side, from private clinics on the other. Most reforms of the health system have various ‘blind spots’. They do not take in account the daily reality of its functioning, its actual governance, the implicit rationales of the actors involved, and the quality of healthcare provision. In order to document the numerous neglected problems of the health system, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is needed to produce evidence.

Télécharger l’article complet:

Abstract:

Our research programme on fee exemption policies in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger involved sensitive topics with strong ideological and political connotations for the decision-makers, for health-workers, and for users. Thus we were confronted with reluctance, criticism, pressures and accusations. Our frank description of the shortcomings of these policies, based on rigorous research, and never polemical or accusatory, surprises political leaders and health managers, who are accustomed to official data, censored evaluations and discourse of justification. This reflexive paper aims to react to some misunderstandings that arose regularly: “By focusing on the problems, you will discourage the aid donors”. “By focusing on the problems, you are playing into the hands of the opponents of fee exemption”. “You should focus on what works and not on what doesn’t work”. “The comments and behaviour you report are not representative”. “What you say is not new, we already knew about it”. Double discourse prevails in aid-dependent countries. The official discourse is mostly sterilized and far removed from reality. It protects the routine of the local bureaucracies. But the private ‘speak’ is quite different, and everyone knows the everyday ruses, tricks and arrangements within the health system. Anthropologists collect the private speak and transmit it to the public sphere through their analyses in order to provide a serious account of a reality, and creating the conditions for an expert debate and a public debate. The national conference on fee exemption held in Niamey in 2012 was a success in this perspective: healthcare personnel spoke for the first time in a public setting about the numerous problems associated with the fee exemption policy, and they largely confirmed and even supplemented the results of our research. It is difficult to see how the healthcare system can be improved and better quality of service provided without starting from a rigorous diagnosis of these usually concealed realities. Such diagnosis gives arguments to reformers within the health system to make change happen.

Voir l’article complet sur le site de BMC

Abstract:

Free healthcare obviously works when a partner from abroad supplies a health centre or a health district with medicines and funding on a regular basis, provides medical, administrative and managerial training, and gives incentive bonuses and daily subsistence allowances to staff. The experiments by three international NGO in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have all been success stories. But withdrawing NGO support means that health centres that have enjoyed a time of plenty under NGO management will return to the fold of health centres run by the state in its present condition and the health system in its present condition, with the everyday consequences of late reimbursements and stock shortages. The local support given by international NGOs has more often than not an effect of triggering an addiction to aid instead of inducing local sustainability without infusion. In the same way, scaling up to the entire country a local pilot experiment conducted under an NGO involves its insertion into a national bureaucratic machine with its multiple levels, all of which are potential bottlenecks. Only experiments carried out under the “ordinary” management of the state are capable of laying bare the problems associated with this process. Without reformers ‘on the inside’ (within the health system itself and among health workers), no real reform of the health system induced by reformers ‘from the outside’ can succeed. The problems relating to the sustainability of public policies in Africa, especially when the policies benefit from development aid, in the area of health among others, are familiar to researchers and policy-makers. However, as far as user fee exemptions are concerned, debates about these problems have extended well beyond the narrow circle of experts and into the public domain in the countries concerned. Throughout our research, we have observed that the sustainability of free healthcare policies is a major concern of all the actors (health workers, users, managers and senior administrative staff), and an issue that has generated widespread scepticism, especially in Mali and Niger [1,2]. There is general unease about the state’s ability to reimburse health centres and to provide essential inputs. The scepticism is fuelled by a two-fold negative experience: decades of incoherent public policies at national level, plagued by bad management and uncertain funding, on the one hand; and the endless U-turns by donors, the double binds of frequent contradictions in their funding policies and the short-term nature of the programmes they enact, on the other [3]. The first years of exemption policies, which were beset by late reimbursements and more or less chronic stock shortages, only added to the scepticism. The disquiet appears to be justified: despite their positive impact in terms of health centre attendance, without funding guaranteed over time, efficient management, secure supply channels and motivated staff, free healthcare policies fall foul of a host of adverse effects at every level of the health pyramid.

Voir l’article complet sur le site de BMC

Abstract:

This article analyzes the historical background of the institutionalization of user fees and their subsequent abolition in West Africa. Based on a narrative review, we present the context that frames the different articles in this supplement. We first show that a general consensus has emerged internationally against user fees, which were imposed widely in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s; at that time, the institutionalization of user fees was supported by evidence from pilot projects funded by international aid agencies. Since then there have been other pilot projects studying the abolition of user fees in the 2000s, but these have not yet had any real influence on public policies, which are often still chaotic. This perplexing situation might be explained more by ideologies and political will than by insufficient financial capacity of states.

Télécharger l’article complet:

Abstract:

The use of mixed methods (combining quantitative and qualitative data) is developing in a variety of forms, especially in the health field. Our own research has adopted this perspective from the outset. We have sought all along to innovate in various ways and especially to develop an equal partnership, in the sense of not allowing any single approach to dominate. After briefly describing mixed methods, in this article we explain and illustrate how we have exploited both qualitative and quantitative methods to answer our research questions, ending with a reflective analysis of our experiment.

Télécharger l’article complet:

Abstract:

In Mali, where rates of attendance at healthcare facilities remain far below what is needed, three user fee exemption policies were instituted to promote access to care. These related to HIV/AIDS treatment, as of 2004, caesarean sections, since 2005, and treatment of malaria in children under five and pregnant women, since 2007. Our qualitative study compared these three policies, looking at their implementation provisions, functioning and outcomes. In each healthcare facility, we analysed documentation and carried out three months of on-site observations. We also conducted a total of 254 formal and informal interviews with health personnel and patients. While these exemptions substantially improved users’ access to care, their implementation revealed deep dysfunctions in the health system that undermined them all, regardless of the policy studied. These policies provoked resistance among health professionals that manifested in their practices and revealed, in particular, the profit-generation logic within which they operate today. These dysfunctions reflect the State’s incapacity to exercise its regulatory role and to establish policies that are aligned with the way the health system really works.

Voir l’article complet sur le site de BMC