HEALTH SYSTEMS STRENGTHENING

CHAPTER 1
HEALTH SYSTEMS STRENGTHENING: AN INTRODUCTION
A previous version of this chapter was prepared by the Partners for Health Reformplus Project
as a Technical Reference Material module on Health Systems Strengthening, for the Child
Survival and Health Grants Program, 2005.
1.1 Introduction: Defining Health Systems and Health System Strengthening
At its broadest, health system strengthening (HSS) can be defined as any array of initiatives and
strategies that improves one or more of the functions of the health system and that leads to better
health through improvements in access, coverage, quality, or efficiency (Health Systems Action
Network 2006).
The purpose of this chapter on HSS is to—
• Provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission health teams and
program implementers with a general overview of HSS
• Explain the relationship between efforts to improve the delivery of high impact services
and overall HSS
• Suggest how USAID bilateral projects can benefit from HSS approaches to enhance
project results and sustainability
The functions of the health system and the ways in which those systems can be strengthened are
further detailed in the sections that follow. These issues are further discussed in Chapters 5–11 of
this manual.
Health systems can be understood in many ways. The World Health Organization (WHO)
defines health systems as “all the organizations, institutions, and resources that are devoted to
producing health actions.” This definition includes the full range of players engaged in the
provision and financing of health services including the public, nonprofit, and for-profit private
sectors, as well as international and bilateral donors, foundations, and voluntary organizations
involved in funding or implementing health activities. Health systems encompass all levels:
central, regional, district, community, and household. Health sector projects engage with all
levels and elements of the health system and frequently encounter constraints that limit their
effectiveness.
The World Health Report 2000 (WHO 2000) identifies the four key functions of the health
system: (1) stewardship (often referred to as governance or oversight), (2) financing, (3) human
and physical resources, and (4) organization and management of service delivery. Figure 1.1
illustrates the relationship between the four functions of health systems.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-2
Source: Adapted with permission from WHO (2001).
Figure 1.1 Functions the Health System Performs
1.2 Stewardship (Governance), Policy, and Advocacy
The stewardship, or governance, function reflects the fact that people entrust both their lives and
their resources to the health system. The government in particular is called upon to play the role
of a steward, because it spends revenues that people pay through taxes and social insurance, and
because government makes many of the regulations that govern the operation of health services
in other private and voluntary transactions (WHO 2000).
The government exercises its stewardship function by developing, implementing, and enforcing
policies that affect the other health system functions. WHO has recommended that one of the
primary roles of a Ministry of Health is to develop health sector policy, with the aims of
improving health system performance and promoting the health of the people (WHO 2000).
Governments have a variety of so-called policy levers they exercise to affect health programs
and health outcomes (Table 1.1).
Functions the system performs
Stewardship
(oversight)
Creating resources
(investment and
training)
Financing
(collecting, pooling and
purchasing)
Delivering services
(provision)
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-3
Table 1.1 Government Policy and Health Programs
Governmental Policy Levers
Relevance to Health Programs
Size of the total government health
budget
Sets the overall limit on what a government can spend
Financing mechanisms for funding the
health care system (e.g., donor
support, taxes, user fees, social
insurance contributions)
Determine what flexibility the government has for financing
health care and identify potential financial barriers that may
exist for accessing care (e.g., fees, their levels, and
exemptions)
Allocation of the government health
budget
Reflects how the government uses its tax resources to, for
example, deliver services, employ staff, subsidize providers,
regulate the sector, provide information, and configure the
sector in terms of preventive vs. curative services, personnel
vs. supplies, investment in human resources (training) vs.
physical resources (hospital)
Affects which programs are prioritized and what populations
will benefit (rich vs. poor, urban vs. rural)
Regulation of civil society organizations Can facilitate or constrain the functioning of private voluntary
organizations (PVOs), nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and community organizations with regard to service
delivery and the capacity such groups have to influence and
advocate for health services
Political support to raise awareness for
specific health messages and
behaviors (e.g., clear government
support for specific health messages
such as prevention of HIV,
contraceptive use, or TB treatment)
Can be powerful for stigmatized or polemic health initiatives
and promoting high impact health interventions (e.g., hand
washing)
Adoption of specific health standards or
guidelines
Can improve the quality of care, expand or constrain the
number of providers, and facilitate implementation of
approaches such as Integrated Management of Childhood
Illness (IMCI).
Regulation of pharmaceuticals Can improve medicine quality assurance and rational use of
medicines
Can influence the ability to bring medicines and supplies into
the country
Business regulations and taxation Can influence the degree to which the private sector
participates in health care—for example, import taxes can
affect pharmaceutical sales; business regulations can hamper
private providers from setting up practices; limitations on
advertising can limit promotion of branded health products
An example of strong government stewardship in health can be found in Uganda, where the
government’s proactive approach to preventing HIV/AIDS is likely to have reduced the
incidence of the disease. The government provided an enabling environment by encouraging
community-based initiatives and supporting mass communication campaigns, which promoted
prevention and behavior change.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-4
Furthermore, stewardship in health encompasses (1) activities that go beyond the health system
to influence the main determinants of health (e.g., education, poverty, environment), and (2)
other issues that are external to the health system, but which either foster or constrain its
effectiveness. For example, a government may decide to tax imported medicines to increase
general tax revenues or to protect local producers, but in doing so, will increase prices to
consumers and impair access to these medicines. Stewardship in this area seeks to influence the
broader environment in which the health system operates.
Emerging research evidence demonstrates that health is a key component to good development
policy (Saunders 2004). The presence of poor health conditions in a country slows economic
growth directly as societies lose potential workers and consumers to disease and disability.
Attention to reducing child mortality and morbidity results in healthier children who can attend
school and eventually contribute to economic growth when they become wage-earners. When
child survival is the norm, parents tend to have fewer children and are able to invest more in their
children’s education and health.
Priorities in health policy also need to be elaborated at the national and local levels through
health goals that address improving the health of the poor and reducing the gap between the poor
and non-poor for an impact on child survival (Gwatkin 2000). Although the establishment of
policy lays an essential foundation for a government’s intention, its value depends on the
evidence and effects of policy implementation.
As such, health system assessment should take account of the degree of government
decentralization and the levels and authorities that are the key decision makers in health. Which
levels have authority over planning, budgeting, human resources, and capital investment? Is the
health sector represented at the district council level? Does the district have a role in policy
development, resource allocation, and human resource planning? These dimensions underscore
the need to approach health system performance and strengthening by understanding the
interaction and linkages that exist between health financing, service delivery, and management of
human resources in the health sector.
1.2.1 Performance Criteria
Understanding the health policies of the national government, and its international commitments,
allows for informed development of advocacy for improved health care access, equity, and
quality. In addition, national policies affect the system’s ability to deliver efficiency, thereby
affecting the overall sustainability of the system and its ability to function into the foreseeable
future from a financial and organizational perspective. These performance criteria are defined
and further explained in Annex 1A.
1.2.2 Sustainability
A stronger health system is fundamental to sustaining health outcomes achieved by the health
system. Sustainability typically cannot be guaranteed through changes at the local level only. For
example, health providers can be trained at the local level, but if these providers cannot be
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-5
retained or supervised or if medicines and supplies are not available, then health gains will be
limited.
Sustainability of health programs can be addressed on several levels: institutional, program,
community, and health outcomes. Below in Table 1.2 are some examples of how each level of
sustainability defined for child survival can be linked to the broader health system to contribute
to sustainability.
Table 1.2 Linking Priority Health Services Sustainability in the Health System
Level of Sustainability
Health System
Institutional Ensures legal framework is in place to facilitate establishment and
sustainability of private organizations
Develops sustainable management and financing systems within
organizations
Programmatic Seeks consistency between priority health services and broader health
information systems (HIS), quality standards, and other elements
Shares programmatic successes with health officials and policymakers
for broader application in the health system
Community Broadens community involvement to include advocacy for policies that
support sustainability of priority health services
Health outcome Ensures—
• Strong government stewardship
• Pro-low-income health policies
• Political leadership to promote community and household actions
that, in turn, promote priority health services
• Adequate health financing for services and resources
• A provider payment system that rewards delivery of primary care
• Effective licensing of professional providers
• A functioning pharmaceutical and commodity supply system
• A functioning HIS that tracks priority health services indicators
1.3 Health Financing
1.3.1 Why Health Financing Is Important
Health financing is a key determinant of health system performance in terms of equity,
efficiency, and quality. Health financing encompasses resource mobilization, allocation, and
distribution at all levels (national to local), including how providers are paid. Health financing
refers to “the methods used to mobilize the resources that support basic public health programs,
provide access to basic health services, and configure health service delivery systems” (Schieber
and Akiko 1997). Understanding health financing can help answer questions such as the
following—
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-6
• Are resource mobilization mechanisms equitable? Do the wealthier subsidize the poor
and those most in need?
• Is the distribution of resources equitable? Efficient? Or are wealthier populations
benefiting more from public financing than are poorer populations?
• Do provider payments reward efficiency? Quality?
By understanding how the government health system and services are financed, programs and
resources can be better directed to strategically complement the health financing already in place,
advocate for financing of needed health priorities, and aid populations to access available
resources.
Many health sector programs are involved in strengthening health financing systems by
mobilizing resources, advocating how resources should be allocated, and configuring health
service delivery. Some examples of successful health financing interventions with impact on
priority services are found in Annex 1B
1.3.2 The Health Financing System
The health financing system consists of the payers, providers, and consumers of health services
and the policies and regulations that govern their behavior (see Figure 1.2). The simplest
example is when the patient pays the provider directly, whereby the consumer and payer are the
same person.
Source: Adapted from Schieber and Akiko (1997).
Figure 1.2 Financing Flows in the Health System
1.3.3 Sources of Health Financing
Health systems in developing countries are financed through a mix of public, private, and donor
sources. The mix of sources varies widely.
Fees, global
budgets
Claims
Health services
Direct payments
Taxes,
premiums
Insurance
coverage
Consumers of
health services
(patients)
Providers of care
(facilities, midwives,
doctors)
Payers (consumers,
government, insurers,
employers, donors)
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-7
Public sources are governments that raise funds through taxes, fees, donor grants, and loans
(Schieber and Akiko 1997). Typically the Ministry of Finance allocates general tax revenue to
finance the Ministry of Health budget. Most government health budgets are historical; that is,
they are based on budgets from previous years that are adjusted annually to account for inflation
or at the same rate as most other government spending. These budgets usually have separate line
items for personnel, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, supplies, fuel, and training, and they finance
only recurrent costs. Capital investments are often found in a separate budget that may be paid
for through donor grants or loans.
In decentralized health systems, district health authorities are often given power to allocate
nonpersonnel, noncapital investment funds at the local level to social sector budgets such as
education and health. This flexibility allows for some local priority-setting according to needs
within social sectors. A few countries use global health budgets that give recipients (e.g., district
health authority or hospital) discretion over how to allocate the budget.
Private sources include households and employers who pay fees directly to providers in both
public and private sectors, pay insurance premiums (including payroll taxes for social health
insurance), and pay into medical savings accounts and to charitable organizations that provide
health services. Household out-of-pocket payments form a large source of health financing in
many developing countries (Zellner, O’Hanlon, and Chandani 2005).
The private sector is an important source of health financing in most developing countries.
Figure 1.3 shows that private expenditure on health is large compared with public expenditure in
all regions. Private expenditure is primarily in the form of out-of-pocket expenditures by
households (WHO 2006).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the
Caribbean
Middle East and North
Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
South Asia
Percent
Private Expenditure Public Expenditure
Source: WHO (2006) data
Figure 1.3 Percentage Expenditure on Health—Private versus Public
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-8
Reliance on user charge financing at the point of service puts a greater burden of ill health on
poorer households. In the case of catastrophic health events, the need to pay can impoverish
families or cause them to forego treatment.
Out-of-pocket payment in the public sector is a common means of public financing for health
(Schieber and Akiko 1997). A user fee is a type of cost sharing for public programs. In addition
to resource mobilization, user fees can prevent excessive use of services. In Zambia, the
government shares the cost of health services with the population through user fees, and the
funds retained are usually used at the local level to supplement staff salaries or purchase
supplies.
To promote equity, countries implementing user fees usually have an exemption policy for
certain groups of individuals or circumstances. Exemptions usually target specific services and
populations, such as immunizations or children under five. Significant challenges can arise in
applying an exemption policy on a consistent basis, as is illustrated in Table 1.3, because of
varying practices and policies in a decentralized system and difficulties in verifying income
status of individuals and households.
Table 1.3 Health Centers Reporting Fee Exemption Practices in Three Regions in Ethiopia
(percentages)
Exempted Service Amhara Oromia
Southern Nations,
Nationalities, and
Peoples
Immunization 100 100 100
Prenatal care 94 100 95
Family planning 89 100 86
Delivery 50 67 71
HIV services 28 20 52
Malaria treatment 0 67 5
Note: The table illustrates the percentage of surveyed health centers that exempt fees for priority services. Source:
Excerpted from John Snow, Inc (2005).
Fee waivers are another form of exemption whereby selected groups, such as civil servants, war
veterans, or the verifiably poor, are exempted from payment. Many countries have attempted to
define eligible groups according to poverty indicators, but ensuring equity in implementation is
generally difficult (John Snow, Inc. 2005).
Donors finance health systems through grants, loans, and in-kind contributions. PVOs often are
financed by donors and voluntary contributions. The sector-wide approach (SWAp) is a
financing framework through which government and donors support a common policy and
expenditure program under government leadership for the entire sector. A SWAp implies
adopting common approaches across the sector and progressing toward reliance on government
procedures and systems to disburse and account for all funds. Many countries with SWAp
mechanisms have a diversified funding mix, including grant-funded projects.
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-9
Under the SWAp, basket funding—a common funding pool to which SWAp partners
contribute—enables flexibility in allocating funds according to government priorities and
programs. This approach differs from project financing and vertical programs, in which funds are
provided for a specific purpose and may be managed independently of the government budget or
priorities. Another means by which donors can commit funds to government health programs is
through budget support. These grants or loan contributions to the general treasury can have
particular earmarks for sectors, such as health and education, and can be used for purposes
identified by the relevant ministries.
1.3.4 Health Insurance Systems and Mechanisms
Health insurance is a system whereby companies, groups, or individuals pay premiums to an
insurance entity to cover medical costs incurred by subscribers. Depending on how an insurance
system is structured, it can pool the premium payments from the rich and healthy with the poor
and sick to improve equity and thus prevent impoverishment by covering medical costs from
catastrophic illness or injury. Health insurance does not create new funds for health and can
increase inequities (e.g., if members are mainly the better-off).
In the public sector, social health insurance (SHI) programs are set up as mandatory insurance
systems for workers in the formal sector. SHI contributions, which are typically payroll taxes
from both employers and employees, are placed in an independent or quasi-independent fund
separate from other government finances. SHI contributions may improve equity by mandating
larger contributions from higher paid workers (Normand 1999). SHI has been successful in
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, which have a large and
robust formal sector. Thailand, some of the Eastern European countries and former Soviet
republics, and many countries in Latin America have well-functioning SHI systems. SHI systems
in countries such as Morocco, Egypt, and Mexico cover substantial populations in which a
household member works in the formal sector; however, the majority of the population in each
country is not covered, including the poorest. SHI systems in low-income countries generally
lack the resources to provide wide coverage of quality health services, although some SHI
systems have their own facilities or contract with NGOs and commercial providers to expand
access.
Whereas social insurance primarily pools risk across income groups, private insurance is based
on the distribution of risk between the sick and the well (Normand 1999). Private insurance is
quickly growing in developing countries as the private sector in many regions expands and
employers seek ways to provide health insurance to their employees. Unlike social insurance,
private insurance is often “risk-rated,” meaning that those who are judged more likely to need
care pay a higher insurance premium. This arrangement often limits those covered by private
insurance to employees—who as a group are lower risk—and benefits do not reach lower income
populations and those in the informal sector.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-10
Both private insurance and SHI mainly cover those
working in the formal sector, whereas community-based
health financing (CBHF) reaches those in both the
formal and informal sector, often in rural agricultural
communities (Box 1.1). CBHF schemes, or mutual health
organizations as they are known in West Africa, are
community- and employment-based groupings that have
grown progressively in several regions of Africa in recent
years (Atim and others 1998). Through CBHF schemes,
communities contribute resources to a common pool to
pay for members’ health services, such as user fees at a
government facility or medical bills from a private health
facility. Most CBHF schemes have a designated list of
benefits, some focusing on primary health care, whereas
others shield members from the catastrophic costs of hospitalizations.
In Rwanda, CBHF schemes have resulted in better access to quality health services for scheme
members, resulting in a high level of membership (Butera 2004). Some schemes generate
surpluses, which are sometimes used to subsidize premium contributions for the poorest
households in the community, contributing to financial equity.
1.3.5 Provider Payments
An important goal of the health system is to assure the right incentives for providers. Provider
payments are categorized as either prospective or retrospective. Prospective payments are a set
amount established before services are provided, such as capitated or case-based payments
(Barnum, Kutzin, and Saxenian 1995). Retrospective payments, typically referred to as fee-forservice
payments, are made after the services have been provided.
How providers are paid affects their behavior. The payment mechanism can promote or
discourage efficiency; affect quality, supply and mix of providers, and supply and mix of
services; and determine which patients receive care. The main types of provider payment
mechanisms are salaries, fee-for-service, capitated payment (a fixed amount per person, which is
the way health maintenance organization providers are paid), and case-based payment (fixed
amount per diagnosis, such as the Diagnosis-Related Groups, or DRG systems, used by
Medicare). The provider payment system can include incentives for provision of child health and
other essential services.
A lesson learned from health financing reform is the value of experimentation with different
payment methods to achieve optimal methods for local conditions. Testing reforms in local
demonstration sites to determine impact allows policymakers to make corrections before
launching national-level reforms (Wouters 1998).
Box 1.1
CBHF Schemes vs. Conventional
Health Insurance
“CBHF schemes share the goal of
finding ways for communities to meet
their health financing needs through
pooled revenue collection and
resource allocation decisions made
by the community. However, unlike
many insurance schemes, CBHF
schemes are typically based on the
concepts of mutual aid and social
solidarity” (Bennett, Gamble Kelley,
and Silvers 2004).
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-11
1.4 Human and Physical Resources
The third function of the health system is the recruitment, training, deployment, and retention of
qualified human resources; the procurement, allocation, and distribution of essential medicines
and supplies; and investment in physical health infrastructure (e.g., facilities, equipment).
The human resources interventions in Table 1.4 illustrate the link between common human
resources problems—such as maldistribution, poor motivation, and poor capacity—and higher
level system issues.
Table 1.4 HSS for Human Resources
Human Resource Issues
Possible National-Level HSS Interventions
Production of right number and mix
of health workers by medical,
nursing, and allied health schools
Long-term planning and coordination with Ministry of Education
to, for example, promote training of more primary care physicians
and fewer specialists
Management and supervision for
quality assurance, worker
motivation, and production and use
of health information
Organizational development at the Ministry of Health, job
descriptions and worker performance systems to increase
accountability, and links to training and improved health outcomes
Civil service reform to allow reform of provider payment systems
Coordinating with and strengthening professional regulatory
bodies to build support for and reinforce interventions in, for
example, compensation and training
Compensation, including provider
payments and benefits, to improve
retention and performance
Provider payments that reward quality and productivity or reward
deployment to specific geographic areas
Integration of compensation for community health workers
Continuing education and training for
public, private sector, and
community health workers
Investment in health training institutions
Integration of child health training curricula into local medical and
nursing schools
Linking training to job roles, supervision, and compensation to
ensure that new skills are applied and reinforced, and to licensing
or accreditation standards
Ensuring the availability of
medicines, supplies, equipment, and
facilities so health workers can
perform
Financing reforms to increase financing of essential medicines,
supplies, and equipment
Donor coordination and sector-wide planning for investments in
facilities
Strengthening of procurement and logistics systems
1.4.1 Human Resource Management in the Health Sector
WHO notes that human resources are the most important part of a functional health system
(WHO 2000). Recently, attention has focused on the fact that progress toward health-related
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is seriously impeded by a lack of human resources in
health, with serious implications for child survival and health goals. In many cases, PVOs and
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-12
their service providers are filling the gaps left by insufficient public health workers, inaccessible
private health providers, or both.
For government health workers, evidence shows that effective public management can contribute
to improved performance of workers. New public sector management philosophy calls for
responsibilities to be delegated to local areas with responsibility for specific tasks and decision
making at the local level, a focus on performance (outputs and outcomes), a client orientation,
and rewards or incentives for good performance (World Bank 2004).
As illustrated in Figure 1.4, the appropriate training, distribution, and support of health care
workers has multiple management, technical, and resource dimensions. A key human resources
challenge concerns compensation for health workers. Government or local remuneration norms
are often too low to motivate workers, and policy to guide international agencies to apply
standardized rates is often lacking.
Source: Joint Learning Initiative (2004, p. 5).
Figure 1.4 Managing for Performance
Key human resources issues and their impact on the system (Joint Learning Initiative 2004)
include the following—
• Low, and possibly declining, levels of medical human resources. In many developing
countries, medical education programs are not producing enough doctors and other health
workers. This deficit is compounded by the outflow of trained staff from the public sector
to the private sector and from developing countries to industrialized countries and,
particularly in Africa, by the loss of health workers to HIV/AIDS.
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-13
• Geographic imbalances. Urban areas have higher concentrations of trained health care
personnel than rural areas; incentives to work in remote areas are lacking.
• Imbalance of skills’ mix and poor skills. Unskilled staff provide services for which they
are unprepared. Training is often poor, and little or no training to update skills is
available. As a result, mistreatment and misdiagnosis can be commonplace.
• High degree of absenteeism. Related to inadequate compensation and supervision, civil
service laws or cultural obstacles preclude terminating staff who do not perform well.
Appropriate solutions to these issues are affected by a wide range of related problems, including
the lack of public funds for health programs, inadequate training facilities, and competing
regional efforts for health workers.
1.4.2 Medicines, Supplies, and Logistics Systems
Access to essential medicines and supplies is fundamental to the good performance of the health
care delivery system. Availability of medicines is commonly cited as the most important element
of quality by health care consumers, and the absence of medicines is a key factor in the underuse
of government health services.
WHO estimates that one-third of the world’s population lacks access to essential medicines.
Problems in access are often related to inefficiencies in the pharmaceutical supply management
system, such as inappropriate selection, poor distribution, deterioration, expiry, and irrational
use. Where medicines are available, price may be a barrier for the poor. Pharmaceutical
subsidies, fee waivers, and availability of affordable generic medicines are some of the
pharmaceutical financing approaches that can mitigate barriers to access.
Weak regulation of the pharmaceutical market is associated with poor quality control, presence
of fake and substandard medicines on the market, growing drug resistance problems due to
irrational use, dispensing by unqualified practitioners, and self-medication in lieu of seeking
qualified health care.
Improved pharmaceutical supply management is an element of many health sector reform
efforts. Promising improvements in pharmaceutical supply systems have been made in some
countries; however, many continue to struggle with a mix of inefficient public sector and private
supply systems. Decentralization of health sectors has in some cases intensified the problem,
establishing logistics systems in the absence of trained human resources, infrastructure, and
management systems at the decentralized levels. Where more efficient systems have been
established, countrywide access may still remain weak.
1.5 Organization and Management of Service Delivery
This health system function includes a broad array of health sector components, including the
role of the private sector, government contracting of services, decentralization, quality assurance,
and sustainability. This section is not intended to be all-inclusive but rather to briefly describe
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-14
some of the key organizational and managerial components of the health system that can directly
or indirectly affect health service delivery. For a brief description of how government policy and
regulation affect the organization and management of service delivery, see Section 1.1.
1.5.1 Decentralization
Governments pursue decentralization to improve administrative and service delivery
effectiveness, increase local participation and autonomy, redistribute power, and reduce ethnic
and regional tensions; decentralization is also used as a means of increasing cost efficiency,
giving local units greater control over resources and revenues, and increasing accountability
(Brinkerhoff and Leighton 2002).
Decentralization deals with the allocation of political, economic, fiscal, and administrative
authority and responsibility from the center to the periphery. Most experts agree that there are
several types of decentralization (Rondinelli 1990)—
• De-concentration: the transfer of authority and responsibility from the central office to
field offices of the same agency
• Delegation: the transfer of authority and responsibility from central agencies to
organizations outside their direct control, for example, to semiautonomous entities,
NGOs, and regional or local governments
• Devolution: the transfer of authority and responsibility from central government agencies
to lower level autonomous units of government through statutory or constitutional
measures
• Privatization: sometimes considered a separate type of decentralization
Health sector programmers should be prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that
decentralization presents and be aware of the constraints it may impose, in whichever stage of
decentralization the country is in. (See Table 1.5)
Table 1.5 Decentralization Opportunities and Constraints and Implementation Issues
Opportunities Constraints and Implementation Issues
• Greater citizen participation to identify health
needs and decide how to use health
resources
• Increased equity, solidarity, efficiency, and
self-management
• More efficient use of public resources
• Better and faster response to local demands
• Improved accountability and transparency
• Public-private collaboration at the local level
• Increased health worker motivation
• Delegation of responsibility without delegation of
authority or adequate resources
• Lack of capacity at the decentralized levels
• Lack of political support at the central level
• Lack of clarity regarding new roles
• Disruption of existing systems such as the health
information system and pharmaceutical supply
• Disruption of public health programs such as
immunization
• Loss of federal employment benefits when
workers shift to subnational level
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-15
In practice, decentralization efforts have had mixed results. HSS seeks to assist countries to
implement decentralization more effectively by—
• Clarifying new roles
• Aligning resource allocation with responsibility
• Building capacity at decentralized levels so staff can absorb new responsibilities
• Building capacity at the central level in its new role of policy formulation, regulation, and
performance monitoring
1.5.2 Private Sector
The private sector is a key source of health services, and its coverage is rapidly increasing. (See
Box 1.2) Use of government health services is too low to affect indicators such as child mortality
without the contributions of private sector health services, including NGO services (WHO 2003).
Information from the Multi-Country Evaluation of Integrated Management of Childhood Illness
has shown that IMCI must be adopted by private sector health services, in addition to
government health services, to achieve a reduction in child mortality in some countries.
The private health sector is typically defined to comprise “all providers who exist outside of the
public sector, whether their aim is philanthropic or commercial, and whose aim is to treat illness
or prevent disease” (Mills and others 2002). Private sector actors include the following—
• Private providers including for-profit (commercial) and nonprofit formal health care
providers (private hospitals, health centers, and clinics) and traditional and informal
practitioners, including traditional midwives and healers
• Community-based organizations and civil society groups that do not directly provide
health services, but provide
complementary or related
services such as advocacy
groups, voluntary support
groups, and communitybased
health insurance
schemes
• Wholesalers and retailers of
health or health-related
commodities such as
medicines, oral rehydration
solution (ORS), insecticidetreated
nets, and
contraceptive supplies;
retailers may range from
pharmacies with qualified
Box 1.2
Evidence of the Role of the Private Sector
Review of Demographic and Health Survey data from
38 countries shows that 34 to 96 percent of children in
the poorest income quintile who seek treatment for
diarrhea, and 37 to 99 percent of children who seek
care for acute respiratory tract infection receive that
care in the private sector.
In India, the private sector distributes 65 to 70 percent
of the oral rehydration solution used in the country.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of malaria
episodes are initially treated by private providers,
mainly through the purchase of medicines from shops
and peddlers.
Source: Bustreo and others (2003)
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-16
pharmacists to small unregulated medicine stalls in the private sector and general retailers
who carry health-related products
• Private companies that take actions to protect or promote the health of their employees
(such as company clinics or health education programs)
• Private health insurance companies that offer insurance and can also influence provider
incentives via their contracting and payment mechanisms
Annex 1C summarizes the variety of types of interventions that have been used to engage the
private sector in the delivery of health products and services.
The following strategies could be used for health sector organizations to work with the private
sector—
• Extending services in critical areas such as HIV/AIDS care through private health
workers and providing clinical updates and training in management skills
• Engaging in contracting arrangements to supplement government service provision
• Social marketing of products for health improvement, such as condoms, ORS,
insecticide-treated bed nets, and micronutrients
• Working with employer-based services to extend and improve priority services
• Informing or educating private providers about effective health service approaches such
as IMCI (Waters, Hatt, and Peters 2003)
1.5.3 Contracting
Contracting of health services is an instrument by which governments can take advantage of
private sector resources in the health sector. Contracting refers to any public purchasing or donor
financing of services from private providers, both for-profit and nonprofit, and encompasses a
broad spectrum of services. These services include, among others, the direct provision of health
care, the training of health providers, management services, and the education of communities
and households.
Governments in the developing world are increasingly contracting with NGOs either to deliver
government-financed primary health care or to support government delivery of such care. This
practice rests on the premise that the traditional organizational form of the public sector, with its
hierarchical bureaucracy, has low and limited efficiency, and that the introduction of private
management and support can enhance the efficiency of public spending on these services.
Another rationale is that NGOs are often located in remote areas and capable of increasing
access to and improving the quality of basic health services through their greater flexibility in
management and their higher accountability.
The evidence of the impact of contracting on access, quality, equity, and health status is limited,
however. A recent review by Liu and others (2004) identifies only 17 journal entries related to
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-17
the issue of contracting out primary health care services in developing countries. Overall, the
existing literature highlights the need for extensive additional research on the effects of
contracting of primary health care services on access, quality, and efficiency.
1.5.4 Quality Assurance
Quality assurance is a health system element that has grown in importance as costs of care have
escalated and consumer awareness and demand for quality services have increased. Many studies
demonstrate that use of services and willingness to pay are strongly related to patient perceptions
of quality. Improved health outcomes are closely linked to quality improvements. Quality
functions and institutions are found in various parts of the health system, for example,
professional licensing, hospital and health facility accreditation, infection control committees,
supervisory structures, national policy and standards committees, quality assurance committees
within clinical services at various levels, and drug quality assurance authorities. Quality
improvement processes may be at work in many areas of the system, via a wide range of
instruments: standard treatment guidelines, in-service training programs, management quality
assurance processes, medical records audit, health facility inspection, and peer review systems,
among others.
1.6 Health Information Systems
HIS form an essential part of the larger body of health management information systems, the
elements of which have a common purpose—to inform and guide decision making. Lack of
capacity and progress in measurement and analysis of health information are well-known
constraints to national policy making and resource allocation. HIS in many countries suffer from
poor management and insufficient resources. At the facility level, health workers commonly
spend 40 percent or more of their time filling in HIS forms (Bertrand, Echols, and Husein 1988)
but may make little use of the data for decision making. HIS are beset with demands for change
and expansion to meet the requirements of new programs and projects, often in the absence of a
national policy and planning for this vital component of the health system.
Health management information supports decision making at various levels of the system, from
central-level policy development to local monitoring of primary health care activities. Although
data tend to move to higher levels in the system for compilation and analysis, use of the data for
management at the district, facility, and community level is critical.
For the HIS to function adequately, certain prerequisites need to be in place, such as the
following—
• Information policies: in reference to the existing legislative and regulatory framework for
public and private providers; use of standards
• Financial resources: investment in the processes for the production of health information
(collection of data, collation, analysis, dissemination, and use)
• Human resources: adequately trained personnel at different levels of government
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-18
• Communication infrastructure: infrastructure and policies for transfer, management, and
storage of information
• Coordination and leadership: mechanisms to effectively lead the HIS
A functioning HIS should provide a series of indicators that relate to the determinants of health
(i.e., socioeconomic, environmental, behavioral, and genetic determinants or risk factors) of the
health system, including the inputs used in the production of health and the health status of the
population. Such a list of indicators should be defined by the users of information at different
level in a consensus-building process.
The HIS structure and functional format reflects the organizational structure of the health system
and functions and the degree of decentralization at its various levels. Having a clear
understanding of the overall, big-picture organization of the health care system is thus critical, as
is an understanding of the division of responsibilities among the different levels which, in many
countries, are (1) national or ministry level, (2) regional or provincial level, (3) district level, and
(4) the health center or facility. The role of the private sector and its participation in the HIS
should also be understood in advance as well as the role of other ministries.
1.7 HSS Strategies and Implications
In sum, projects that aim to expand and improve service delivery risk limiting their impact if
they do not take into consideration the health system in which the services operate. In fact, HSS
issues should be addressed at the pre-project assessment stage and remain in focus throughout
project design and implementation.1 When systems issues are not addressed, service delivery
programs often fall short of their potential. For example, a family planning program may train
volunteers in counseling, referral, and resupply of contraceptives, but if the system for
commodity supply is weak, poor service outcomes and dissatisfied clients will likely be the
results. In other words, the investment in mobilizing and training family planning volunteers will
not, on its own, necessarily result in a successful family planning program.
Evidence from recent studies of child survival programs shows that health system constraints
(such as high staff turnover, low quality training of health workers, poor supervision, lack of
continuous supplies of pharmaceuticals and vaccines) are major impediments to increasing
coverage of child health services (Bryce and others 2003). Health programs may be able to
increase and sustain their impact by contributing to broader health system interventions through
assessing, testing, and demonstrating system strengthening approaches. Table 1.6 provides some
examples of system strengthening approaches to a sample of constraints typically faced by health
programs.
1 HSS may be a lesser priority for emergency projects, those that focus on humanitarian aid, or those that are shortterm
rather than sustained development efforts.
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-19
Table 1.6 Typical System Constraints, Possible Disease/Service-specific and Health
System Responses
Constraint Disease or Service-Specific
Response Health System Response(s)
Financial
inaccessibility
(inability to pay
formal or informal
fees)
Exemptions/reduced prices
for focal diseases
Development of risk pooling strategies
Physical
inaccessibility
Outreach for focal diseases Reconsideration of long-term plan for capital
investment and siting of facilities. Coordination and
joint planning with departments of transport and
roads.
Inappropriately
skilled staff
Continuous education/training
to develop skills in focal
diseases
Review of basic medical and nursing training
curricula to ensure that appropriate skills are
included in basic and in-service training.
Poorly motivated
staff
Financial incentives to reward
delivery of particular priority
services
Institution of proper performance review systems,
creating greater clarity of roles and expectations
as well as consequences regarding performance.
Review of salary structures and promotion
procedures.
Weak planning
and management Continuous education/training
workshops to develop skills in
planning and management
Restructuring ministries of health. Recruitment and
development of cadre of dedicated managers.
Lack of
intersectoral
action and
partnership
Creation of special diseasefocused
cross-sectoral
committees and task forces at
the national level
Building systems of local government that
incorporate representatives from health,
education, and agriculture, and promote
accountability of local governance structures to the
people.
Poor quality care
of care
Training providers in focus
diseases or services
Development of monitoring, accreditation and
regulation systems.
Source: Travis et al. (2004).
The overview in this chapter is intended to serve as a basic introduction to HSS issues. In-depth
technical and contextual information is needed to apply many of the approaches presented here.
Readers are encouraged to refer to the HSS technical assistance and tools cited in Annex 1D.
Bibliography
Asian Development Bank. 2004. Project Completion Report on Cambodia Basic Health Services
Project (PCR CAM 27410). Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Atim, C., F. P. Diop, J. Etté, et al. 1998. The Contribution of Mutual Health Organizations to
Financing, Delivery and Access to Health Care in West and Central Africa: Summaries of
Synthesis and Case Studies in Six Countries (Technical Report No. 19). Bethesda, MD:
Partnerships for Health Reformplus Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-20
Axelsson, H., F. Bustreo, and A. Harding. 2003. Private Sector Participation in Child Health, A
Review of World Bank Projects, 1993–2002. Health, Nutrition, and Population Series.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Barnum, H., J. Kutzin, and H. Saxenian. 1995. Incentives and Provider Payment Methods.
International Journal of Health Planning and Management 10:23–45.
Bennett, S., A.Gamble Kelley, and B. Silvers. 2004. 21 Questions on Community-Based Health
Financing. Bethesda, MD: Partners for Health Reformplus Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Bennett, S., and E. Ngalande-Bande. 1994. Public and Private Roles in Health: A Review and
Analysis of Experience in Sub-Saharan Africa. Geneva: World Health Organization, Division of
Strengthening of Health Services.
Bertrand, W. E., B. E. Echols, and K. Husein. 1988. Management Information Systems and
Micro Computers in Primary Health Care. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.
Brinkerhoff, D., and C. Leighton. 2002. Decentralization and Health System Reform. Insights for
Implementers. Bethesda, MD: Partners for Health Reformplus Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Bryce, J., S. el Arifeen, G. Pariyo, C. F. Lanata, D. Gwatkin, J. Habicht, and the Multi-Country
Evaluation of IMCI Study Group. 2003. Reducing Child Mortality: Can Public Health Deliver?
Lancet 362:159–64.
Bustreo, F., A. Harding, and H. Axelsson. 2003. Can Developing Countries Achieve Adequate
Improvements in Child Health outcomes without engaging the private sector? World Health
Bulletin 81(12):886–94.
Butera, D. 2004. Roles des Acteurs dans le Developpement des Mutuelles de Sante au Rwanda.
Paper presented at Forum de la Concertation. AWARE/USAID/WARP, November 17, Bamako,
Mali.
De, S.,and I. Shehata. 2001. Comparative Report of National Health Accounts Findings from
Eight Countries in the Middle East and North Africa (Technical Report). Bethesda, MD:
Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates, Inc.
De Savigny, D., H. Kasale, C. Mbuya, and G. Reid. 2004. Fixing Health Systems. Ottawa:
International Development Research Center.
Donabedian, A. 1980. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Ann Arbor, MI:
Health Administration Press.
Eisele et al. 2003. Linking Health System Strengthening Interventions to the Strategic Objectives
of USAID’s Global Health Bureau, A Conceptual Framework (draft). Partners for Health
Reformplus.
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-21
Guldan, G. 1996.Obstacles to Community Health Promotion. Social Science Medical Journal
43:689–95.
Gwatkin, D. 2000. Health Inequalities and the Health of the Poor: What Do We Know? What
Can We Do? Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78(1):3–15.
Hardeman, W., W. Van Damme, M. Van Pelt, et al. 2004. Access to Health Care for All? User
Fees Plus a Health Equity Fund in Sotnikum, Cambodia. Health Policy and Planning 19(1):22–
32.
Health Systems Action Network. 2006. Website. (accessed Sept. 12,
2006).
John Snow, Inc. 2005. Twelve Baseline Health Surveys. Boston: John Snow, Inc. USAIDfunded.
Joint Learning Initiative. 2004. Human Resources for Health: Overcoming the Crisis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Llewellyn-Jones, L. 2000. Sharing Power: Principles for Community Participation in Health
Promotion. Rosebud, Australia: Australian Institute for Primary Care.
(accessed
Sept. 12, 2006).
Liu, Xingzhu, D. R. Hotchkiss, S. Bose, et al. 2004. Contracting for Primary Health Services:
Evidence on Its Effects and Framework for Evaluation. Bethesda, MD: Partners for Health
Reformplus Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Marek, Tonia, I. Diallo, B. Ndiaye, and J. Rakotosalama. Successful Contracting of Prevention
Services: Fighting Malnutrition in Senegal and Madagascar. Health Policy and Planning
14(4):382–89.
Mills, A., R. Brugha, K. Hanson, and B. McPake. 2002. What Can Be Done about the Private
Health Sector in Low-Income Countries? World Health Bulletin 80(4):325–30.
Morris, S. 2004. Monetary Incentives in Primary Health Care and Effects on Use and Coverage
of Preventive Health Care Interventions in Rural Honduras. Lancet 364:2030–37.
Normand, C. 1999. Using Social Health Insurance to Meet Policy Goals. Social Science and
Medicine 48: 865–69.
Partners for Health Reformplus. 2005a. Child Survival Health Grantees Program (CSHGP)
Partners’ Meeting, January 19, 2005 (informal survey conducted by Partners for Health
Reformplus), Bethesda, MD. Bethesda, MD: Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates,
Inc.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-22
———. 2005b. The Montreux Challenge: Making Health Systems Work (draft). Bethesda, MD:
PHRplus, Abt Associates, Inc.
———. n.d. Using Community-Based Financing to Expand Access to Health Care. Issues and
Results. Bethesda, MD: Partners for Health Reformplus Project, Abt Associates Inc.
(accessed Sept. 12, 2006).
Project Concern. 2005. Municipal Health Partnership Program (MHPP) proposal, April 15, 2005.
Rondinelli, D. 1990. Decentralizing Urban Development Programs: A Framework for Analyzing
Policy (CDIE Document No. PN-ABD-906). Washington DC: USAID, Office of Housing and
Urban Programs.
Saunders, M. K. 2004. Investments in Health Contribute to Economic Development. Bethesda,
MD: Partners for Health Reformplus Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Schieber, G., and M. Akiko. 1997. A Curmudgeon’s Guide to Financing Health Care in
Developing Countries. Innovations in Health Care Financing (World Bank Discussion Paper
No. 365). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Schneider, P., and T. Dmytraczenko. 2003. Improving Access to Maternal Health Care through
Insurance. Insights for Implementers. Bethesda, MD: Partners for Health Reformplus Project,
Abt Associates Inc.
Schott, W., and M. Makinen. 2004. Proposal for Mainstreaming Health Systems Initiative.
Bethesda, MD: Partners for Health Reformplus Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Schwartz, B., and I. Bhushan. 2004. Improving Immunization Equity through a Public Private
Partnership in Cambodia. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82(9), 661–67.
Smith, E., R. Brugha, and A. Zwi. 2001. Working with Private Sector Providers for Better
Health Care. London: Options Consultancy Services Limited and London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine.
Soeters, R., and F. Griffiths. 2003. Improving Government Health Services through Contract
Management: A Case from Cambodia. Health Policy and Planning 18(1):74–83.
Travis, P., S. Bennett, A. Haines, et al. 2004. Overcoming Health System Constraints to Achieve
the Millennium Development Goals. Lancet 364(9437):900-06.
Waters, H., L. Hatt, and D. Peters. 2003. Working with the Private Sector for Child Health.
Health Policy and Planning 18(2):127–37.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2000. The World Health Report 2000. Health Systems:
Improving Performance. Geneva: WHO.
(accessed Sept. 12, 2006).
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-23
———. 2001. “What Is the WHO Health Systems Performance Framework?” WHO website.
(accessed Sept. 12, 2006).
———. 2003. Multi-Country Evaluation of IMCI Effectiveness, Cost and Impact (MCE).
Progress Report, May 2002–April 2003. Geneva: WHO.
———. 2006. World Health Report 2006. Geneva: WHO.
World Bank. 2004. The Millennium Development Goals for Health, Rising to the Challenges.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wouters, A. 1998. Alternative Provider Payment Methods: Incentives for Improving Health Care
Delivery. Primer for Policymakers. Bethesda, MD: Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt
Associates Inc.
Zellner, S., B. O’Hanlon, and T. Chandani. 2005. State of the Private Health Sector Wall Chart.
Bethesda, MD: Private Sector Partnerships-One (PSP-One) Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-24
Annex 1A. Definition of Performance Criteria
Equity is a normative issue that refers to fairness in the allocation of resources or the treatment
of outcomes among different individuals or groups. The two commonly used notions of equity
are horizontal and vertical equity.
• Horizontal equity is commonly referred to as “equal treatment of equal need.” For
example, horizontal equity in access to health care means equal access for all individuals
irrespective of factors such as location, ethnicity, or age.
• Vertical equity is concerned with the extent to which individuals with different
characteristics should be treated differently. For example, the financing of health care
through a social health insurance system may require that individuals with higher income
pay a higher insurance contribution than individuals with lower income (similar to
progressive taxation).
Efficiency refers to obtaining the best possible value for the resources used (or using the least
resources to obtain a certain outcome). The two commonly used notions of efficiency are
allocative and technical efficiency.
• Allocative efficiency means allocating resources in a way that ensures obtaining the
maximum possible overall benefit. In other words, once allocative efficiency is reached,
changing the allocation and making someone better-off without making someone else
worse-off is impossible.
• Technical efficiency (also referred to as productive efficiency) means producing the
maximum possible sustained output from a given set of inputs.
Access is a measure of the extent to which a population can reach the health services it needs. It
relates to the presence (or absence) of economic, physical, cultural or other barriers that people
might face in using health services. Several types of access are considered in the field of health
care, but the two types that are primarily investigated in this assessment are financial access and
physical access.
• Financial access (also referred to as economic access) measures the extent to which
people are able to pay for health services. Financial barriers that reduce access are related
to the cost of seeking and receiving health care, relative to the user’s income.
• Physical access (also referred to as geographic access) measures the extent to which
health services are available and reachable. For example, not having a health facility
within a reasonable distance to a village is physical access barrier to health care for those
living in the village.
Quality is the characteristic of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or
implied needs. Quality is defined as “that kind of care which is expected to maximize an
inclusive measure of patients’ welfare after one has taken account of the balance of expected
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-25
gains and losses that attend the process of care in all of its parts” (Eisele and others 2003, citing
Donabedian 1980).
Sustainability is the capacity of the system to continue its normal activities well into the future.
The two commonly used notions of sustainability are financial and institutional sustainability.
• Financial sustainability is the capacity of the health system to maintain an adequate
level of funding to continue its activities (for example, ability to replace donor funds
from other sources after foreign assistance is withdrawn).
• Institutional sustainability refers to the capacity of the system, if suitably financed, to
assemble and manage the necessary nonfinancial resources to successfully carry on its
normal activities in the future.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-26
Annex 1B. Examples of How Selected HSS Interventions Have Influenced the Use of Priority Services
Examples of
Successful HSS
Interventions
Description of Intervention Positive (▲) or Negative (▼)
Effect on Health System Performance
Outcomes in Terms of
Service Use or Health
Impact
Contracting of private
health care service
management: Pereang
District Cambodia
(Soeters and Griffiths
2003)
This example addresses
all services
Contracting with an international NGO to
manage a network of district health
facilities from 1999 to 2003
▲ Access to health services increased, even with official user
fees, because the fees were less than the “informal” user fees
demanded from government-managed facilities. Out-of-pocket
household expenditures decreased.
▲ Quality was shown to improve as a result of performancebased
incentives.
▼ Equity may have been compromised because the poor were
not given user fee exemptions.
▼ Informal private activities to earn extra income by privately
contracted managers may have negatively affected quality and
efficiency.
Use of basic health services
increased dramatically among
the privately managed facilities.
The increases in use were
primarily attributed to improved
quality and financial access.
Example of social
insurance in Bolivia
(Schneider and
Dmytraczenko 2003)
This example focuses on
maternal and child health
services but may also be
applicable to other
services.
SNMN (Spanish acronym for National
Insurance for Mothers and Children) was
implemented in 1996. The plan reduced
out-of-pocket expenditures and covered a
range of maternal and child health
services. The intervention was
implemented in the midst of a
decentralization initiative.
▲ Access was shown to increase as a result of decreased
financial barriers.
▼ Sustainability was an issue because reimbursement rates did
not meet actual facility expenditures.
▼ Inefficiency was also an issue as patients sought care in
higher level facilities (no co-payments).
Use of formal maternal and
child health services increased
as a result of the insurance
scheme, but use by the poorest
groups increased less than by
other groups.
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-27
Examples of
Successful HSS
Interventions
Description of Intervention Positive (▲) or Negative (▼)
Effect on Health System Performance
Outcomes in Terms of
Service Use or Health
Impact
Tanzania Essential Health
Interventions Project
(TEHIP)
(De Savigny and others
2004)
The TEHIP’s primary aim was to test the
Word Bank's World Development Report
1993 suggestion that health can be
significantly improved by adopting a
minimum package of health interventions
to respond directly and cost-effectively to
evidence about the burden of disease.
Incremental, decentralized, sector-wide
health basket funding and a tool kit of
practical management, planning, and
priority-setting tools to facilitate evidencebased
district level decision making were
introduced to accomplish the above.
▲ Efficiency (allocative) and equity: the introduction of TEHIP
tools significantly improved budget allocation directing resources
to high priority, cost-effective interventions, some of which had
previously been underfunded.
▲ Efficiency (technical): Stronger planning, management, and
administration at the district level from tools for decision making.
▲ Quality: District managers’ adoption of IMCI improved quality
of child health services and capacity of health workers. Possible
increased adult patient attendance at facilities for IMCI may also
benefit from worker capacity.
Child mortality in the two
districts fell by over 40 percent
in the five years following the
introduction of evidence-based
planning; and death rates for
men and women between 15
and 60 years old declined by
18 percent.
Monetary incentives in
primary health care and
effects on use and
coverage of preventive
health care interventions
in rural Honduras
(Morris 2004)
This example focuses on
maternal and child health
services.
In this cluster-randomized trial,
municipalities of high malnutrition
prevalence were selected with the
objective of increasing demand for
preventive health care in pregnant women,
new mothers, and children under three
years by—
Using conditional payments to households
(the household-level package)
Improving quality of peripheral services by
providing resources and training (servicelevel
package)
The baseline survey was conducted in
2000, with a follow-up in 2002.
▲ Access to services increased through decreased financial
barriers.
▼ Efficiency and quality: Transferring resources to local health
teams proved legally and logistically difficult and could not be
properly implemented, even though quality training was given.
No significant impact could be attributed to the service package
alone, possibly in part because of the partial implementation of
this service package. The difficulty of this transfer of resources is
cited as a finding itself.
▼ Sustainability: Questions remain about the long-term
sustainability of cash transfer programs, enforcement of
conditionality vouchers, or both.
This intervention had a large
impact on coverage of prenatal
care and well-child checkups
(18–20 percentage points
each), specifically from the
conditional payment package.
Increased frequency of contact
facilitated timely immunization
series initiation for children;
however, measles coverage
and tetanus toxoid for mothers
were not affected.
Source: Partners for Health Reformplus (2005)
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-28
Annex 1C. Summary of Private Sector Interventions
Intervention Description Expected Results Additional Sources of Information
Social
marketing
Social marketing is the use of
commercial marketing techniques to
achieve a social objective. In
developing countries, donors have
used social marketing to increase
access and use of products such as
contraceptives, oral rehydration salts,
and insecticide-treated nets.
Social marketing is a wellestablished
and proven strategy
for increasing access and use
of essential health products.
Armand, F. 2003. Social Marketing Models for Product-
Based Reproductive Health Programs:
A Comparative Analysis. Washington DC:
USAID/Commercial Market Strategies Project.
Kikumbih, N., K. Hanson, A. Mills, et al. 2005 The
Economics of Social Marketing,
The Case of Mosquito Nets in Tanzania. Social
Science and Medicine 60: 269–381.
Chapman, Steve, and H. Astatke. 2003. The Social
Marketing Evidence Base: A Review of 87 Research
Studies. Washington, DC: PSI, 2003.
Vouchers Vouchers have been used to
subsidize the price of health services
and products to target populations
with the goal of improving access to
and use of those services and
products.
Vouchers increase consumer
choice and affordability of care
from private sector providers
through subsidy of goods or
services.
Developing countries have only
recently begun experimenting
with voucher programs for
health products and services.
Islam, Mursaleena. 2006. Primer for Policymakers—
Vouchers for Health: A Focus on Reproductive Health
and Family Planning Services. Bethesda, MD: PSPOne/
PHRplus, Abt Associates Inc.
Sandiford, Peter, A. Gorter, and M. Salvetto.
2002.Vouchers for Health: Using Voucher
Schemes for Output-Based AID. (Public Policy for the
Private Sector, Viewpoint, No. 243.) Washington DC:
World Bank.
World Bank. 2005. A Guide to Competitive Vouchers
in Health. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2005
Contracting
out
Governments contract with private
providers (both not-for-profit and forprofit)
to deliver individual or a
bundles of health services.
Contracting out expands private
sector coverage of particular
services via government finance
and may (through contract
specification) improve quality of
care. Sometimes, contracting
out is said to improve efficiency
and quality through competition.
Loevinsohn, Benjamin, and A. Harding. 2004. Buying
Results: A Review of Developing Country Experience
with Contracting for Health Service Delivery.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Liu, Xingzhu, D. Hotchkiss, S. Bose, et al. 2004.
Contracting for Primary Health Services: Evidence on
Its Effects and a Framework for Evaluation. Bethesda,
MD: PHRplus.
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-29
Intervention Description Expected Results Additional Sources of Information
Public–
private
partnerships
Private companies join with
government, international
organizations, or nonprofits to focus
on addressing a social need.
Such partnerships leverage
private sector resources for the
delivery of health products and
services.
Marek, Tonia, C. O’Farrell, C. Yamamoto, and I.
Zable. 2005. Trends and Opportunities in Public-
Private Partnerships to Improve Health Service
Delivery in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Rionda, Zynia L. 2002. A Compendium of Corporate
Social Responsibility Activities Worldwide.
Washington DC: USAID/Catalyst Consortium.
Building on the Monterrey Consensus: The Growing
Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Mobilizing
Resources for Development. Cologne/Geneva: World
Economic Forum, 2005.
PSI. 2005. Corporate AIDS Prevention Programs:
Fighting HIV/AIDS in the Workplace. Washington, DC:
PSI.
Provider
networks
and
franchises
Networks and franchises are an
affiliation of health services providers
grouped together under an umbrella
structure or parent organization.
Networking providers has been
found to be effective to ensure a
standard of quality and price for
given services. It also allows for
the scale-up of services through
individual private providers.
Chandani, Taara, S. Sulzbach and M. Forzley. 2006.
Private Provider Networks: The role of Viability in
Expanding the Supply of Reproductive Health and
Family Planning Services. Bethesda, MD: Bethesda,
MD: Private Sector Partnerships-One (PSP-One)
Project, Abt Associates Inc.
Montagu, Dominic. 2002. Franchising of Health
Services in Developing Countries, Health Policy and
Planning, 17(2):121-130. Cambridge: Oxford
University Press.
Tsui, Amy. 2005. Franchising Reproductive Health
Services: What can the private health
sector in Three Developing Countries
Contribute? Public Health Grand Rounds Lecture.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg
School of Public Health, Jan. 26, 2005.
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-30
Intervention Description Expected Results Additional Sources of Information
Accreditation Assessment of a health care
organization or a private provider’s
compliance with a pre-established
performance standard.
Accreditation is a strategy for
improving the performance of
providers against a preestablished
quality standard.
Heerey, Michelle, and Edgar Necochea. 2005. An
Overview of Accreditation and
Certification for Improving Health Service Quality.
Baltimore, MD: JHU-CCP.
World Health Organization. 2005. Accreditation in
Healthcare Services—A Global Review, Washington,
DC: WHO.
Policy
reform
The laws, policies, regulations, and
procedures that affect the
environment for private sector
provision of health services can be
changed. These policies range from
laws that restrict private providers to
lack of appropriate policy oversight of
the private sector by government.
Policy reform increases private
sector participation by removing
unnecessary policy obstacles to
private sector participation.
Ravenholt, B., R. Feeley, D. Averbug, and B.
O’Hanlon. 2006. Navigating Uncharted Waters: A
Guide to the Legal and Regulatory Environment for FP
Services in the Private Sector. Bethesda, MD: Private
Sector Partnerships-One (PSP-One) Project, Abt
Associates Inc.
PHRplus. 2.1. Working with Private Providers to
Improve the Delivery of Priority Health
Services. Bethesda, MD: PHRplus.
Marek, Tonia, C. O’Farrell, C. Yamamoto and I. Zable.
2005.Trends and Opportunities in Public-Private
Partnerships to Improve Health Service Delivery in
Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Training,
continuous
education for
private
providers
Knowledge and skills of private
providers are improved through a
variety of training techniques including
direct training, continuous medical
education, and detailing.
Training improves knowledge,
skill, and quality of care of
private providers.
Smith, E., R. Brugha, and A. Zwi. 2001. Working with
Private Sector Providers for Better Health Care: An
Introductory Guide. London: Options and LSHTM.
Chapter 1. Health Systems Strengthening: An Introduction
1-31
Annex 1D. HSS Technical Assistance and Tools
Systems Strengthening
Area
Assessment and Improvement Technical Assistance and Tools
HSS diagnostics • Tools and methods for diagnosing the sources of system weakness (in
financing, policy, organization and management, resource allocation,
quality, and commodities)
Financing • Financing policy development
• Cost analysis
• Basic accounting tools
• National health accounts
• Tools for community-based insurance and pre-payment schemes
• Insurance development (national, social) including actuarial tools
• Financial sustainability plans
Policy • Stakeholder analysis
• Political mapping
• Equity analysis techniques
• Policy analysis methods
• Advocacy tools
• Public and private sector relationship
• Regulation
Organization and
management
• Efficiency assessment
• Health and financial management information systems (national,
regional, district, and facility)
• Accreditation guidelines
• Health worker motivation
• Health facility organization and productivity
• Contracting with public and private providers
Resource allocation • Resource planning models
• Resource requirements projection tools
• Provider payment methods
• Cost-effectiveness analysis
Subsector-specific tools
(HIV/AIDS)
• National health accounts subanalysis
• Financing and Subsidy Strategy Development Tool
• AIDSTreatCost (ATC) model
• GOALS computer model for funding allocation
• Workplace quality model
Commodities management • Medicines and supplies policy
• Inventory management tools
• Demand forecasting models
• Ordering and dispatching tools
Quality assurance • Quality thesaurus
• Provider self-assessment tools
• Patient exit interviews
• Tools for supervision for quality
Source: Schott and Makinen (2004)
Health Systems Assessment Approach: A How-To Manual
1-32