benchmarks of fairness workshop agenda l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Benchmarks of Fairness Workshop Agenda PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Benchmarks of Fairness Workshop Agenda

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 52

Benchmarks of Fairness Workshop Agenda - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 254 Views
  • Uploaded on

Benchmarks of Fairness Workshop Agenda Sviavonga, Zambia June 11-13, 2003 Benchmarks of Fairness: A policy tool for developing countries Norman Daniels June, 2003 Zambia Norman Daniels ndaniels@hsph.harvard.edu Dept. Population and International Health, HSPH Development of BMs

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Benchmarks of Fairness Workshop Agenda' - benjamin


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
benchmarks of fairness workshop agenda

Benchmarks of Fairness WorkshopAgenda

Sviavonga, Zambia

June 11-13, 2003

benchmarks of fairness a policy tool for developing countries

Benchmarks of Fairness:A policy tool for developing countries

Norman Daniels

June, 2003

Zambia

norman daniels

Norman Daniels

ndaniels@hsph.harvard.edu

Dept. Population and International Health, HSPH

development of bms
Development of BMs
  • 1993 Clinton Task Force
  • 1996 Benchmarks of Fairness OUP
  • Pilot work in Pakistan, 1997
  • 1999-2000 Adaptation: Pakistan, Thailand, Colombia, Mexico: Daniels, Bryant et al Bulletin of WHO, June 2000
  • 2001-3 Demonstration Phase:Mexico, Portugal, Pakistan, Thailand; Vietnam Cameroon, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Sri Lanka, Yunnan, Bangladesh, Zambia
some common concerns about hs trends
Some Common Concerns about HS Trends
  • Rising Costs
  • Epidemiological Transition
  • Privatization and structural reform
    • External pressures, transitional economies
    • “introduce new resources”
      • BUT: undermine public resources
    • “avoid state bureaucracy”
      • BUT: strong state needed to regulate markets
  • Lack of focus on equity, accountability: no integration
  • In Grip of Ideology of Market
  • Lack of Satisfactory Results
the adapted benchmarks
1. Intersectoral public health

2. Financial barriers to equitable access

3. Nonfinancial barriers to access

4. Comprehensiveness of benefits, tiering

5. Equitable financing

6.Efficacy,efficiency,quality of health care

7. Administrative efficiency

8. Democratic accountability, empowerment

9. Patient and provider autonomy

The Adapted Benchmarks
connections to social justice
Connections to social justice
  • Equity
    • B1Intersectoral public health, B2-3 Access, B4Tiering, B5 Financing
  • Democratic Accountability
    • B8, B9Choice
  • Efficiency
    • B6 Clinical Efficacy and quality
    • B7 Administrative efficiency
equity
Equity
  • Equality
  • Vs Equity
    • Benefit according to need
    • Burden according to ability to pay
efficiency
Efficiency
  • Value for money
  • Vs equity
  • Promoting equity
accountability
Accountability
    • Responsible to:
      • Patient
      • Institution
      • public
  • Agent
    • Responsible for
      • Act or outcome
structure of bms
Structure of BMs
  • B1-9 Main Goals
    • Criteria -- Key aspects
      • Sub criteria-- main means or elements
  • Evidence Base + Evaluation
    • Indicators
    • Scoring Rules
some evaluation approaches
Some evaluation approaches
  • Specific reseach on reform effects (e.g. Bossert on decentralization, Hsiao on financing outcomes)
  • Monitoring of reform process (e.g. PAHO monitoring project)
  • WHO Framework (index for cross country performance comparisons, including focus on equity, efficiency, responsiveness)
  • Policy development approaches: Reich, Roberts, Berman -- new book based on World Bank project to get reform efforts right, including value clarification
who framework vs bm

WHO

BM

Scope

Cross national

Nat, subnat

Objective

Current perform

Reform eval

Purpose

Motivate

Deliberate

Product

Index, ranks

Scores

Who uses

National pol mk

Various

Requires

Good info

Info, tr. people

Problems

Inform change?

Subjectivity?

Overlap

Move to reforms

complementary

WHO Framework vs BM
key features of bm
Key Features of BM
  • Country Specific: national, subnational
  • Integrates Equity, Efficiency, Accountability
  • Evidence Based (Objectivity)
  • Pragmatic
    • adapted locally to purposes, evidence
    • focus on improvement
  • Improves Deliberative Capacity
  • Complements other approaches
eg and bm interaction
EG complements BM

Strong intersectoral focus (Chile, Burkina Faso, Kenya)

Strong focus on path from info collection to evidence based interventions,w. accountability

Strategies for sensitive info

Good public private collaborations

BM complements EG

Useful for G’s focusing on health care systems and budgeting as in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, S.A./Cape Town

Help G’s to prioritize issues and focus on advocacy campaigns within G’s

Further tool for advocacy within G’s

EG and BM Interaction
b1 intersectoral public health
B1: Intersectoral Public Health
  • Degree to which reform increases per cent of population (differentiated) with: basic nutrition, adequate housing, clean water, air, worplace protection, education and health education (various types), public safety and violence reduction
  • Info infrastructure for monitoring health status inequities
  • Degree reform engages in active intersectoral effort
b2 financial barriers to access
B2: financial barriers to access
  • Nonformal sector
    • Universal access to appropriate basic package
    • Drugs
    • Medical transport
  • Formal Sector Social/Private Insurance
    • Encourages expansion of prepayment
    • Family coverage
    • Drug, med transport
    • Integrate various groups, uniform benefits
b3 nonfinancial barriers to access
B3: Nonfinancial barriers to access
  • Reduction of geographical maldistribution of facilities, services, personnel, other
  • Gender
  • Cultural -- language, attitude to disease, uninformed reliance on traditional practitioners
  • Discrimination -- race, religion, class, sexual orientation, disease
b4 comprehensiveness of benefits and tiering
B4: Comprehensiveness of benefits and tiering
  • All effective and needed services deemed affordable by all needed providers, no categorical exclusions
  • Reform reduces tiering and achieves more uniform quality, integrates services to all
b5 equitable financing
B5: Equitable financing
  • Financing by ability to pay
    • If tax based scheme: how progressive (by population subgroup), how much reliance on cash payments (by subgroup)
    • If premium bases scheme: community rated? Reliance on cash payments?
b6 efficacy efficiency and quality of health care
B6: Efficacy, efficiency and quality of health care
  • Primary health care focus
    • Population based, outreach, community participation, integration with system, incentives, appropriate resource allocation
  • Implementation of evidence based practice
    • Health policies, public health, therapeutic interventions
  • Measures to improve quality
    • Regular assessment, accreditation, training
b7 administrative efficiency
B7: Administrative efficiency
  • Minimize administrative overhead
  • Cost-reducing purchasing
  • Minimize cost shifting
  • Minimize abuse and fraud and inappropriate incentives
b8 democratic accountability and empowerment
B8: Democratic accountability and empowerment
  • Explicit public detailed procedures for evaluating services, full public reports
  • Explicit deliberative procedures for resource allocation (accountability for reasonableness)
  • Fair grievance procedures, legal, non-legal
  • Global budgeting
  • Privacy protection
  • Enforcement of compliance with rules, laws
  • Strengthening civil society (advocacy, debate)
b9 patient and provider autonomy
B9: Patient and Provider autonomy
  • Degree of consumer choice
    • Primary care providers, specialists, alternative providers, procedures
  • Degree of practitioner autonomy
why is evidence base important
Why is evidence base important?
  • Evidence base makes evaluation objective
  • Making evaluation objective means:
    • Explicit interpretation of criteria
    • Explicit rules for assessing whether criteria met and the degree to which alternatives meet them
  • Objectivity provides basis for policy deliberation
    • Gives points of disagreement a focus that requires reasons and evidence
evidence base components
Evidence Base: Components
  • Adapted Criteria--convert generic benchmarks into country-specific tool
    • Reflect purpose of application
    • Reflect local conditions
  • Indicators
    • Outcomes
    • Process
    • revisability
  • Scoring rules
    • Connect indicators to scale of evaluation
    • Specify in advance
process of selecting indicators
Process of selecting indicators
  • Clarity about purpose
  • Type of criterion determines type of indicator
    • Outcomes vs process indicator appropriate
    • Standard vs invented for purpose
    • Requires clarity about mechanisms of reform
  • Availability of information
  • Consultation with experts
  • Final selection in light of tentative scoring rules
  • Further revision in light of field testing
slide31

Scoring Benchmarks

Reform relative to status quo

-5 0 +5

Or use qualitative symbols, --- or +++

scoring rules general points
Scoring Rules: General Points
  • Map indicator results onto ordinal scale of reform outcomes
  • Final selection of indicators should be done as scoring rules are developed, so refinements can be made
  • Scoring rules should be adopted prior to data collection to increase objectivity, but may have to be revised in light of problems
structure of scoring rule i
Structure of Scoring Rule:I
  • Relative to scale from -5 to +5 with 0 as status quo or point of reform
  • If there is only one indicator for criterion and it is outcome indicator:
    • Estimate ideal outcome for this indicator, e.g., 100% coverage for a population group for clean water or vaccination
    • Specify baseline value -- e.g., 60%
    • Divide gap between baseline into proportions of scale and assign score value to indicator outcomes
structure of scoring rule ii
Structure of scoring Rule:II

If only one indicator and it is process and qualitative; e.g. to measure transparency we count public reports issued for performance of pharmacies or district hospitals

Could count % of such units issuing public reports -- then scoring might work as in previous case

  • May need to combine this indicator with another measuring public access to the report (was it really available on request, did anyone request it, did community or advocacy group request it, or actually use it
what about disagreements
What about disagreements?
  • Won’t different groups using bm’s come up with different scoring rules, different results?
    • Yes, but specification of evidence base provides basis for deliberation about disagreements
  • Won’t different groups using same instrument have come disagreements about evaluations?
    • Yes, but specificity of evidence base provides basis for resolving dispute?
perfect information
Perfect information?
  • Won’t benchmarks reflect only part of truth about situation with policies under analysis?
    • Better to seek comprehensive household survey to get complete representative view?
    • Settle for less perfect info but have a basis for deliberation about disagreements - but requires clarity about evidence base
information plus process
Information Plus Process
  • Many approaches aim to give excellent information input but leave process of deliberation unaffected
  • Benchmarks aim to improve process of deliberation itself
    • Adaptation that includes developing evidence base is training in what to look for when monitoring and evaluating and how to derive conclusions about reform from that
    • Improvement can take place at any level -- official policy makers, institutions doing implementation and lower level planning, community groups assessing effects
cameroon
Cameroon
  • MoH supports evaluation officially
  • Subnational -- district level
  • Medical Student rotation -- training, fieldwork
  • Baseline, then repeats for monitoring, evaluation
  • evidence base: complex, capacity building, revisable, limited resources
cameroon constraints on indicators illustrating compromises
Cameroon constraints on indicators: illustrating compromises
  • Absence of survey data
  • Student investigators
  • District level sources
  • Risks to students
cameroon results
Cameroon Results
  • Data from 8 districts, first group of students, analyzed, May ‘03; data quality so far good
  • Data from some bmks easier to collect than others; waiting results from other districts and students
  • Further steps: faculty workshop to refine criteria, national workshop to present and adopt indicators, nationwide implementation as framework, use by DMOs as management tool
current projects i
Current Projects: I
  • Phase 2:
    • Thailand--Supasit project-- RF-- report drafted; electronic version soon available
    • Pakistan--Khan project--RF--just beginning
    • Mexico--Gomez Dantes--Mexican funding--publication in prep, available electronically
    • Portugal--Portuguese funding
  • Phase 1+: Vietnam-- MoH proposal-- seeking RF
  • Phase 1: (various stages)
    • Underway for 1 yr or less months:
      • Cameroon-- preliminary report available
      • Nicaragua, Ecuador, Guatemala : indicators selected in Ecuador, Guatemala, field testing this summer
      • Kenya (informal, Bryant)
current projects ii
Current Projects: II
  • Phase 1 Work
    • Recently underway-- initial workshop held, plan developed, working group carrying out adaptation, mix of MoH, NGO, academics, varying degrees approval from MoH
      • Chile -- November 2002; EG collab
      • Bangladesh-- January 2003; EG collab
      • Sri Lanka - December 2003; some WHO country support
      • Kunming- Jan 2003; seeking WHO country support
    • Planning Stage
      • African sites--Zambia, South Africa (June 2003, EG collab), Zimbabwe, Botswana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda
project needs
Project Needs
  • Longer term support for regional coordination (Asia, Africa, Latin America)
  • Country level support for second phase projects
  • Midterm support for web page, training manual (to be in place by end of 2003 with RF support)