Policy analysis of the protection of Iranian households against catastrophic health expenditures: a qualitative analysis

Abstract

BackgroundDespite the adoption of various policies and strategies in recent decades, the Iranian health system has not succeeded in protecting households against catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment. Accordingly, this qualitative study aimed to critically analyze current policies for reducing CHE.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted as a retrospective policy analysis based on a document review and semi-structured interviews with key informants between July to October 2022. Two theoretical frameworks were used, including the Analysis of Determinants of Policy Impact (ADEPT) model and Walt and Gilson’s “Policy Triangle framework.” The country's related documents were searched through databases. In total, 35 participants were interviewed. Interviews and documents were analyzed using directed content analysis in MAXQDA v12 software. Interobserver reliability, peer check, and member check were done to confirm the trustworthiness of the data.ResultsTwelve main themes and 42 sub-themes emerged from the data. The findings revealed that policy accessibility, policy background, and a clear statement of goals influenced the policy process. However, resources, monitoring and evaluation, opportunities, and obligations negatively affected the implementation process. In addition, a policy analysis based on the policy triangle framework demonstrated that the main factors affecting the policy on reducing CHE in Iran were “conflicts of interest,” “contextual factors,” “monitoring and evaluation,” and “intersectoral relationship” factors.ConclusionThe present study reflected the multifaceted nature of the barriers to reducing CHE in Iran. The implementation of the policy on reducing CHE requires the political will to improve intersectoral collaboration, strengthen the stewardship role of the Ministry of Health, design monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and prevent personal and organizational conflicts of interest.