Paying for Convenience in Universal Health Coverage: A European Perspective.

Universal health coverage post-2015: putting people first

Universal Health Coverage as a Distinct Sustainable Development Goals Target: Dispelling Doubts and Underlining Implications.

Universal health coverage (UHC) is a critical target in many health system strategies to achieve 'good health and wellbeing'. Evidence on the meaning and scope of UHC and the strategies required to achieve it are needed, as variations in its understanding and implementation have risen. This realist review was conducted to fill the knowledge gap by synthesising evidence on the meaning, components, significance, and strategies of UHC. A review of evidence was conducted based on realist synthesis. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science for published materials and websites for grey literature. We have followed some steps: define the scope of the review and develop initial programme theory, search for evidence, data extraction, and synthesise evidence. This review revealed that universal coverage, universal health, universal healthcare, universal access, and insurance coverage are used interchangeably with UHC. It is a legal notion that embodies a human rights-based and collaborative approach to ensure fair and comprehensive health care services. Universal health coverage is relevant for three macro reasons: first, it prevents and reduces the impact of diseases; second, it addresses inequality and promotes equity; and third, it is key for global health security. Various mechanisms are involved to implement UHC, such as health insurance, social health protection, digital financing systems, value-based care, private sectors, civil societies, partnerships, primary health care, and reciprocal health care systems. In conclusion, universal health coverage is a multifaceted concept that various terms can express in different contexts. Universal health coverage is a political and ethical imperative that aims to promote health equity and protect human dignity across different levels of society. It is essential in preventing diseases and crucial to global health security. Practically, UHC is not truly universal, as it does not include all services under its scheme and varies across countries. This requires consistent advocacy, strategic and operational research, and political will to ensure UHC.

India's High Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage in 2011 recommended a universal, public-funded and national health coverage policy. As a plausible forward-looking macroeconomic reform in the health sector, this policy proposal on universal health coverage (UHC) needs to be evaluated for age structure transition effect and fiscal sustainability to strengthen its current design and future implementation. Macroeconomic analyses of the long-term implications of age structure transition and fiscal sustainability on India's proposed UHC policy. A new measure of age-specific UHC is developed by combining the age profile of public and private health consumption expenditure by using the National Transfer Accounts methodology. Different projections of age-specific public health expenditure are calculated over the period 2005-2100 to account for the age structure transition effect. The projections include changes in: (1) levels of the expenditure as gross domestic product grows, (2) levels and shape of the expenditure as gross domestic product grows and expenditure converges to that of developed countries (or convergence scenario) based on the Lee-Carter model of forecasting mortality rates, and (3) levels of the expenditure as India moves toward a UHC policy. Fiscal sustainability under each health expenditure projection is determined by using the measures of generational imbalance and sustainability gap in the Generational Accounting methodology. Public health expenditure is marked by age specificities and the elderly population is costlier to support for their healthcare needs in the future. Given the discount and productivity growth rates, the proposed UHC is not fiscally sustainable under India's current fiscal policies except for the convergence scenario. However, if the income elasticity of public expenditure on social welfare and health expenditure is less than one, fiscal sustainability of the UHC policy is attainable in all scenarios of projected public health expenditures. These new results strengthen the proposed UHC policy by accounting for age structure transition effect and justifying its sustainability within the framework of India's current fiscal policies. The age structure transition effect is important to incorporate the age-specific cost and benefit of the proposed UHC policy, especially as India moves toward an ageing society. Fiscal sustainability is essential to ensure that the proposed UHC is implementable on a long-term basis and within the framework of current fiscal policies.

China has achieved universal social health insurance coverage, but it is unclear whether this has alleviated the economic burden of disease for individuals. This was investigated in the present study by analyzing National Health Service Survey (2008–2018) data from Jiangsu province. Ordinary least squares and binary multivariate logistic regression of pooled cross-sectional data were carried out to evaluate the effect of universal health insurance coverage and other socioeconomic factors on the economic burden of disease. Total health expenses (THE) first increased and then decreased during the survey period while out-of-pocket health expenses (OOP) decreased except for urban residents, for whom OOP increased after 2013. Household catastrophic health expenditure (HCHE) was stable between 2008 and 2013 but increased after 2013. Social health insurance had a significant positive effect on the annual THE and OOP and a negative effect on HCHE, however, universal health insurance coverage could alleviated THE and the economic burden of disease on individuals (OOP) while it was insufficient to protect against the economic risk of diseases (HCHE), with greater benefits for urban as compared to rural residents. Other socioeconomic factors including age, marital status, education, income, and health status also influenced the economic burden of disease.

Universal Health Coverage and Essential Packages of Care

In 2020, an estimated 596 million people worldwide had distance vision impairment and a further 510 million had uncorrected near vision impairment.1 Most of these people live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC). Eye health is also affected by conditions that do not, at least initially, impair vision. Although these conditions are not currently included in global prevalence estimates, they contribute substantially to the unmet need for eye health services. Vision is important for many aspects of life, and vision impairment can profoundly affect individuals, families, and society. Eye health touches all lives, either directly or indirectly, through its impact on those close to us. The year 2020 marks the culmination of the global initiative to eliminate avoidable blindness, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight (appendix 1 p 7). This initiative provided the framework for national programmes to address eye health over the past 20 years. In 2019, WHO published the World report on vision,2 which was endorsed by the 73rd World Health Assembly in 2020. The report and resolution call for the advancing of eye health as an integral part of universal health coverage, by implementation of integrated people-centred eye care, following the approach outlined in a broader health services framework.3 The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health contends that eye health should be part of the mainstream agenda to achieve universal health coverage and sustainable development. We define eye health as the state in which vision, ocular health, and functional ability are maximised, thereby contributing to overall health and wellbeing, social inclusion, and quality of life. Eye health can be considered both a process and an outcome. We define eye care services as those that contribute to any of vision, ocular health, or functional ability being maximised. This report broadly divides into two halves. First, we present evidence for the importance of eye health, supporting the case for urgent action. Second, looking beyond 2020, we examine approaches to enable delivery of eye health services within universal health coverage. In section 1 we summarise the visual system, vision impairment, and common conditions. In section 2, we synthesise several reviews done by the Commission on the relevance of eye health to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as its impact on quality of life, general health, and mortality. In section 3, we describe the magnitude and causes of vision impairment in 2020 and projected global and regional trends. We explore service needs of people with non-vision impairing eye conditions. We propose a more standardised approach to reporting population-based eye health surveys and examine the disability weights applied to vision impairment. In section 4, we summarise findings from a systematic review of eye health economics, identifying important areas for future work. We present a new estimate of global lost productivity associated with vision impairment for 2020, and an analysis of the cost-effectiveness ratios for cataract surgery and refractive error services. In section 5, we outline a bibliometric analysis of eye health research since 2000, and report a global Grand Challenges project, highlighting crucial issues for concerted research and action. Lastly, we address the question of how health systems can practically advance towards delivering high quality integrated people-centred eye care within universal health coverage.2 We argue that business as usual will be insufficient, as evidenced by new analysis of effective cataract surgical coverage data. We examine service delivery components: primary eye care and integration with general health services, workforce strengthening, financing, health information systems, indicators, advocacy, and approaches to increase quality and equity. The development of global eye health This Commission views global eye health through the global health framework articulated by Koplan and colleagues.4 Eye health started with an understanding of the anatomy, physiology, diseases of the eye, and the development of clinical ophthalmology, the medical and surgical discipline for diagnosis and treatment of eye diseases. From the mid-20th century onwards (figure 1), there have been major technological advances in microsurgical techniques for cataract and other conditions, and equipment for diagnosis and treatment of major non-communicable eye diseases, resulting in more effective interventions. There has been an enormous demographic transition, with ageing populations and epidemiological changes from infectious diseases and towards non-communicable diseases, requiring accessible and affordable eye services with long-term follow-up. The increase in demand, emphasis on better quality, and higher cost of more sophisticated diagnostic and treatment services is requiring an increase in resources, which presents enormous public health challenges. Open in a separate window Figure 1 The development of global eye health Blue circles indicate major global developments. Red circles indicate major treatments and programmatic developments. WHA=World Health Assembly. IAPB=International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness. RAAB=Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness. RACSS=Rapid Assessment of Cataract Surgical Services.

David Evans: putting universal health coverage on the agenda

Progress towards universal health coverage in Myanmar.

Offline: UHC—one promise and two misunderstandings

Women's rights will drive universal health coverage

BackgroundThe pandemic situation due to COVID-19 highlighted the importance of global health security preparedness and response. Since the revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, Joint External Evaluation (JEE) and States Parties Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR) have been adopted to track the IHR implementation stage in each country. While national IHR core capacities support the concept of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), there have been limited studies verifying the relationship between the two concepts. This study aimed to investigate empirically the association between IHR core capacity scores and the UHC service coverage index.MethodJEE score, SPAR score and UHC service coverage index data from 96 countries were collected and analyzed using an ecological study design. The independent variable was IHR core capacity scores, measured by JEE 2016-2019 and SPAR 2019 from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the dependent variable, UHC service coverage index, was extracted from the 2019 UHC monitoring report. For examining the association between IHR core capacities and the UHC service coverage index, Spearman’s correlation analysis was used. The correlation between IHR core capacities and UHC index was demonstrated using a scatter plot between JEE score and UHC service coverage index, and the SPAR score and UHC service coverage index were also presented.ResultWhile the correlation value between JEE and SPAR was 0.92 (p < 0.001), the countries’ external evaluation scores were lower than their self-evaluation scores. Some areas such as available human resources and points of entry were mismatched between JEE and SPAR. JEE was associated with the UHC score (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) and SPAR was also associated with the UHC service coverage index (r = 0.81, p < 0.001). The JEE and SPAR scores showed a significant positive correlation with the UHC service coverage index after adjusting for several confounding variables.ConclusionThe study result supports the premise that strengthening national health security capacities would in turn contribute to the achievement of UHC. With the help of the empirical result, it would further guide each country for better implementation of IHR.

Universal health coverage in China: a serial national cross-sectional study of surveys from 2003 to 2018

In this edition of the Bulletin, Marks-Sultan et al.1 propose that the World Health Organization (WHO) should provide capacity-building for drafting health laws in Member States. They highlight that WHO has the authority and credibility to work with countries to make their national laws easier to access, understand, monitor and evaluate. WHO’s new technical support work related to universal health coverage (UHC) laws is a good example of its support for Member States in this important area. Strengthening countries’ legal and regulatory frameworks and engaging in universal health coverage-compliant law reforms has been missing from the universal health coverage agenda. WHO calls on Member States to align their health system policies with universal health coverage goals such as equity, efficiency, health service quality and financial risk protection. Strengthening health systems using health laws and legal frameworks is a pivotal means for attaining these goals2 and achieving sustainable results in health security and resilience. Laws are needed to ensure the equity, quality and safety of health services and financial protection for health system users. A strong legal framework sets the rules for how the health system functions, establishes a legal mandate for access to health services and provides the means by which a national government can implement universal health coverage at a population level. Several governments have already successfully used their health laws in service of their universal health coverage goals. For example, the governments of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay have all legislated a right to health, which entitles their citizens to expanded access to health services. To date, countries’ legal and regulatory frameworks have not been systematically assessed for their compatibility with the goals of universal health coverage. Work on law reform so far has only focused on individual laws rather than on creating a supportive legal environment for universal health coverage. In many countries, information is lacking on the extent to which existing national laws support or block the goals of universal health coverage.3 A different approach is required. WHO thus recommends that countries analyse their existing legal and regulatory frameworks at international, national and local level and assess their compatibility with universal health coverage, with the ultimate aim of ensuring a legal environment that supports the functioning of the entire health system. In practice, the work on universal health coverage law reform is highly technical and political. It involves legal analysis, multi-stakeholder dialogue and policy discussions.4 A government’s capacity to make and enforce laws and its broader political and economic situation, heavily influence whether law reform can happen. Technical law makers alone cannot address these issues. For example, in Turkey, a universal health coverage reform process included policy dialogue and reflection on the necessary supporting legal reform needed and this consultation led to an accelerated universal health coverage reform implementation.5 Turkey’s experience demonstrates the centrality of law-related policy discussions and multi-stakeholder dialogue on law reform and their importance for the ultimate success of UHC reform. WHO’s technical support to Member States on universal health coverage laws should similarly take a systems approach. In response to requests from its Member States, WHO is working to help governments create supportive legal environments for universal health coverage through legal environment assessments, specialist technical support, multi-stakeholder policy dialogue and advice and guidance on law reform.

To develop a framework and index for measuring universal health coverage (UHC) at the district level in India and to assess progress towards UHC in the districts. We adapted the framework of the World Health Organization and World Bank to develop a district-level UHC index (UHC d ). We used routinely collected health survey and programme data in India to calculate UHC d for 687 districts from geometric means of 24 tracer indicators in five tracer domains: reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health; infectious diseases; noncommunicable diseases; service capacity and access; and financial risk protection. UHC d is on a scale of 0% to 100%, with higher scores indicating better performance. We also assessed the degree of inequality within districts using a subset of 14 tracer indicators. The disadvantaged subgroups were based on four inequality dimensions: wealth quintile, urban-rural location, religion and social group. The median UHC d was 43.9% (range: 26.4 to 69.4). Substantial geographical differences existed, with districts in southern states having higher UHC d than elsewhere in India. Service coverage indicator levels were greater than 60%, except for noncommunicable diseases and for service capacity and access. Health insurance coverage was limited, with about 10% of the population facing catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditure. Substantial wealth-based disparities in UHC were seen within districts. Our study shows that UHC can be measured at the local level and can help national and subnational government develop prioritization frameworks by identifying health-care delivery and geographic hotspots where limited progress towards UHC is being made.