Removal of user fees for caesareans and under-fives in northern Sudan: A review of policy implementation and effectiveness

Immpact, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. .
International Journal of Health Planning and Management (Impact Factor: 0.97). 03/2013; 28(1). DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2146
Source: PubMed


In 2008, the Government of Sudan launched a policy of free curative care for under-fives and caesareans. This paper presents the findings of a review of this policy, on the basis of research conducted in five focal states of northern Sudan in 2010. Policy implementation was assessed using four research tools: key informant interviews, exit interviews, a facility survey, and analysis of facility finances and the cost of the package of care.
The findings point to important weaknesses in implementation, such as unclear specification of the exact target group and package of care and inadequate funding. Despite this, service utilisation appears to have responded, at least in the short term. The findings also highlight the urgent need for improved access to basic health care and financial protection against health care costs in northern Sudan (for those with and without national health insurance membership).
This review contributes to the growing literature on the selective removal of user fees for priority services. It indicates the range of challenges to effective implementation (strategic, financial and organisational). Some of these are particular to Sudan, but many are shared, and indicate important lessons for improving access to and quality of care for women and children in Africa.

Download full-text


Available from: Sophie Witter, Feb 10, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The importance of complexity in health care policy-making and interventions, as well as research and evaluation is now widely acknowledged, but conceptual confusion reigns and few applications of complexity concepts in research design have been published. Taking user fee exemption policies as an entry point, we explore the methodological consequences of 'complexity' for health policy research and evaluation. We first discuss the difference between simple, complicated and complex and introduce key concepts of complex adaptive systems theory. We then apply these to fee exemption policies. We describe how the FEMHealth research project attempts to address the challenges of complexity in its evaluation of fee exemption policies for maternal care. We present how the development of a programme theory for fee exemption policies was used to structure the overall design. This allowed for structured discussions on the hypotheses held by the researchers and helped to structure, integrate and monitor the sub-studies. We then show how the choice of data collection methods and tools for each sub-study was informed by the overall design. Applying key concepts from complexity theory proved useful in broadening our view on fee exemption policies and in developing the overall research design. However, we encountered a number of challenges, including maintaining adaptiveness of the design during the evaluation, and ensuring cohesion in the disciplinary diversity of the research teams. Whether the programme theory can fulfil its claimed potential to help making sense of the findings is yet to be tested. Experience from other studies allows for some moderate optimism. However, the biggest challenge complexity throws at health system researchers may be to deal with the unknown unknowns and the consequence that complex issues can only be understood in retrospect. From a complexity theory point of view, only plausible explanations can be developed, not predictive theories. Yet here, theory-driven approaches may help.
    BMC Health Services Research 11/2013; 13(1):469. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-469 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: User fee removal policies have been extensively evaluated in relation to their impact on access to care, but rarely, and mostly poorly, in relation to their impact on household out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. This paucity of evidence is surprising given that reduction in household economic burden is an explicit aim for such policies. Our study assessed the equity impact on household OOP spending for facility-based delivery of the user fee reduction policy implemented in Burkina Faso since 2007 (i.e. subsidised price set at 900 Communauté Financière Africaine francs (CFA) for all, but free for the poorest). Taking into account the challenges linked to implementing exemption policies, we aimed to test the hypothesis that the user fee reduction policy had favoured the least poor more than the poor. We used data from six consecutive rounds (2006-2011) of a household survey conducted in the Nouna Health District. Primary outcomes are the proportion of households being fully exempted (the poorest 20 % according to the policy) and the actual level of household OOP spending on facility-based delivery. The estimation of the effects relied on a Heckman selection model. This allowed us to estimate changes in OOP spending across socio-economic strata given changes in service utilisation produced by the policy. A total of 2,316 women reported a delivery between 2006 and 2011. Average household OOP spending decreased from 3,827 CFA in 2006 to 1,523 in 2011, without significant differences across socio-economic strata, neither in terms of households being fully exempted from payment nor in terms of the amount paid. Payment remained regressive and substantially higher than the stipulated 900 CFA. The Burkinabè policy led to a significant and sustained reduction in household OOP health spending across all socio-economic groups, but failed to properly target the poorest by ensuring a progressive payment system.
    The European Journal of Health Economics 01/2014; 16(1). DOI:10.1007/s10198-013-0553-5 · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. It is recognized that decisions taken in the early recovery period may affect the development of health systems. Additionally, some suggest that the immediate post-conflict period may allow for the opening of a political ‘window of opportunity’ for reform. For these reasons, it is useful to reflect on the policy space that exists in this period, by what it is shaped, how decisions are made, and what are their long-term implications. Examining the policy trajectory and its determinants can be helpful to explore the specific features of the post-conflict policy-making environment. With this aim, the study looks at the development of policies on human resources for health (HRH) in Sierra Leone over the decade after the conflict (2002-2012). Methods. Multiple sources were used to collect qualitative data on the period between 2002 and 2012: a stakeholder mapping workshop, a document review and a series of key informant interviews. The analysis draws from political economy and policy analysis tools, focusing on the drivers of reform, the processes, the contextual features, and the actors and agendas. Findings. Our findings identify three stages of policy-making. At first characterized by political uncertainty, incremental policies and stop-gap measures, the context substantially changed in 2009. The launch of the Free Health Care Initiative provided to be an instrumental event and catalyst for health system, and HRH, reform. However, after the launch of the initiative, the pace of HRH decision-making again slowed down. Conclusions. Our study identifies the key drivers of HRH policy trajectory in Sierra Leone: (i) the political situation, at first uncertain and later on more defined; (ii) the availability of funding and the stances of agencies providing such funds; (iii) the sense of need for radical change – which is perhaps the only element related to the post-conflict setting. It also emerges that a ‘windows of opportunity’ for reform did not open in the immediate post-conflict, but rather 8 years later when the Free Health Care Initiative was announced, thus making it difficult to link it directly to the features of the post-conflict policy-making environment.
    Conflict and Health 07/2014; 8(11). DOI:10.1186/1752-1505-8-11
Show more