Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Health System Performance (health + system_performance)
Selected AbstractsA critique of the World Health Organisation's evaluation of health system performanceHEALTH ECONOMICS, Issue 5 2003Jeff Richardson Abstract The World Health Organisation's (WHO) approach to the measurement of health system efficiency is briefly described. Four arguments are then presented. First, equity of finance should not be a criterion for the evaluation of a health system and, more generally, the same objectives and importance weights should not be imposed upon all countries. Secondly, the numerical value of the importance weights do not reflect their true importance in the country rankings. Thirdly, the model for combining the different objectives into a single index of system performance is problematical and alternative models are shown to alter system rankings. The WHO statistical analysis is replicated and used to support the fourth argument which is that, contrary to the author's assertion, their methods cannot separate true inefficiency from random error. The procedure is also subject to omitted variable bias. The econometric model for all countries has very poor predictive power for the subset of OECD countries and it is outperformed by two simpler algorithms. Country rankings based upon the model are correspondingly unreliable. It is concluded that, despite these problems, the study is a landmark in the evolution of system evaluation, but one which requires significant revision. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Mapping capacity in the health sector: a conceptual frameworkINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2002Anne K. LaFond Abstract Capacity improvement has become central to strategies used to develop health systems in low-income countries. Experience suggests that achieving better health outcomes requires both increased investment (i.e. financial resources) and adequate local capacity to use resources effectively. International donors and non-governmental agencies, as well as ministries of health, are therefore increasingly relying on capacity building to enhance overall performance in the health sector. Despite the growing interest in capacity improvement, there has been little consensus among practitioners and academics on definitions of ,capacity building' and how to evaluate it. This paper aims to review current knowledge and experiences from ongoing efforts to monitor and evaluate capacity building interventions in the health sector in developing countries. It draws on a wide range of sources to develop (1) a definition of capacity building and (2) a conceptual framework for mapping capacity and measuring the effects of capacity building interventions. Mapping is the initial step in the design of capacity building interventions and provides a framework for monitoring and evaluating their effectiveness. Capacity mapping is useful to planners because it makes explicit the assumptions underlying the relationship between capacity and health system performance and provides a framework for testing those assumptions. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Aiming High for the U.S. Health System: A Context for Health ReformTHE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 4 2008Karen Davis Policy officials often assert that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, but a recent scorecard on U.S. health system performance finds that the U.S. achieves a score of only 65 out of a possible 100 points on key indicators of performance in five key domains: healthy lives, access, quality, equity, and efficiency, where 100 represents the best achieved performance in other countries or within the U.S. The U.S. should aim higher by adopting a set of policies that will extend affordable health insurance to all; align financial incentives for health care providers to enhance value and achieve savings; organize the health care system around the patient to ensure that care is accessible and coordinated; meet and raise benchmarks for high-quality, efficient care; and ensure accountable national leadership and public-private collaboration. The incoming president and Congress should aspire to have the best health system in the world , not just assert it , and can do so by learning from examples of excellence within the U.S. and abroad. [source] Reflections on and alternatives to WHO's fairness of financial contribution indexHEALTH ECONOMICS, Issue 2 2002*Article first published online: 28 FEB 200, Adam Wagstaff Abstract In its 2000 World Health Report (WHR), the World Health Organization argues that a key dimension of a health system's performance is the fairness of its financing system. This paper provides a critical assessment of the index of fairness of financial contribution (FFC) proposed in the WHR. It shows that the index cannot discriminate between health financing systems that are regressive and those that are progressive, and cannot discriminate between horizontal inequity on the one hand, and progressivity and regressivity on the other. The paper compares the WHO index to an alternative and more illuminating approach developed in the income redistribution literature in the early 1990s and used in the late 1990s to study the fairness of various OECD countries' health financing systems. It ends with an illustrative empirical comparison of the two approaches using data on out-of-pocket payments for health services in Vietnam for two years , 1993 and 1998. This analysis is of some interest in its own right, given the large share of health spending from out-of-pocket payments in Vietnam, and the changes in fees and drug prices over the 1990s. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] | ||||||||||