130 likes | 262 Views
This presentation explores the decentralization of health care in Tanzania, analyzing how health sector reforms (HSRs) have shifted priority-setting from national to local levels. It examines the effectiveness of participatory mechanisms, the role of various stakeholders, and the impact of organizational contexts on health care prioritization in the Mbarali district. Despite the existence of policies advocating for community involvement, challenges persist in their implementation, particularly regarding power dynamics and addressing local community needs.
E N D
Decentralization and health care prioritization process in Tanzania: From national rhetoric to local reality Stephen Maluka PhD Candidate, MA (DS) Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Outline of the presentation • Background • Objective of The Study • Conceptual Framework • Study area & Methods • Findings • Conclusion Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Background • During the 1990s, Tanzania adopted health sector reforms (HSRs) • Objectives of HSRs are improving: • efficiency, • equity and • resource mobilization, through leadership, accountability and partnerships at all levels in the health system • The most common policy change under HSRs has been decentralization. • Fiscal (financial), political and administrative Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Background Cont…….. • As part of the reform programmes, the MoH developed guidelines for district level planning and PS. • The planning guidelines called for partnership in the process of setting priorities. • The partners who were identified were the CHMT local government authority, health facility managers, health facility committees and boards, NGOs, private service providers, and communities. • Aimed at facilitating sensitivity to local priorities, providing space for public involvement, and improving the flexibility, efficiency and accountability of resource use Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Objectives of the Paper • Analyse how was health care decentralization being carried out at the local level (how were priorities identified, negotiated and included in the district plans)? • How did organizational and institutional contexts influence participatory and accountability mechanisms? • How was power exercised during the prioritization process at the district level? Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Conceptual Framework (Walt & Gilson, 1994) CONTEXT • ACTORS • individuals • Groups • organizations CONTENT PROCESS Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Study Setting Mbarali district in Mbeya region of Tanzania. Why Mbarali? - a “typical” rural district in Tanzania and also within the reach for the research institutions. Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Methods Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Findings: What do health policy and guidelines say? • PS to be coordinated by the CHMT • The CHMT collect needs from health facility & community before planning. • Priorities based on locally available data & in light of Nationally defined EHP. • Interventions based on severity, feasibility and CEA. • Actual resource allocation based on budget ceilings. • Priorities to be accommodated in CCHP. Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Policy vs. practice in priority setting process in Mbarali District Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Findings cont....... • The CCHP do not reflect community needs • No clear delineation of responsibilities & relationships between health committees & boards. • Power imbalances in the priority setting process in the districts. • The CHMT had limited autonomy Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Conclusion • Tanzania has good policies on participatory planning & PS –but not implemented. • Public engagement in PS & decision-making is persistent challenge. • Power imbalances limit input from community in decision making. • Engaging citizens & community interest groups is important to ensure broader values and perspectives. • Communities need both opportunity & capacity for true empowerment. Priorities 2010: Boston, USA
Thank you Asante Sana Priorities 2010: Boston, USA