| Autor: |
Witter S; Institute of Global Health and Development & ReBUILD for Resilience, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK., Bertone MP; Institute of Global Health and Development & ReBUILD for Resilience, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK., Diaconu K; Institute of Global Health and Development & ReBUILD for Resilience, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK., Bornemisza O; Health Systems Strengthening, Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Geneva, Switzerland. |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Zdroj: |
Health systems and reform [Health Syst Reform] 2021 Jan 01; Vol. 7 (1), pp. e2006121. |
| DOI: |
10.1080/23288604.2021.2006121 |
| Abstrakt: |
A debate about how best to finance essential health care in low- and middle-income settings has been running for decades, with public health systems often failing to provide reliable and adequate funding for primary health care in particular. Since 2000, many have advocated and experimented with performance-based financing as one approach to addressing this problem. More recently, in light of concerns over high transaction costs, mixed results and challenges of sustainability, a less conditional approach, sometimes called direct facility financing, has come into favor. In this commentary, we examine the evidence for the effectiveness of both modalities and argue that they share many features and requirements for effectiveness. In the right context, both can contribute to health system strengthening, and they should be seen as potentially complementary, rather than as rivals. |
| Databáze: |
MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
