Supporting a review of the benefits package of the National Health Insurance Scheme in Ghana.

Autor: Vellekoop H; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. vellekoop@imta.eur.nl.; Ministry of Health, Accra, Ghana. vellekoop@imta.eur.nl., Odame E; Ministry of Health, Accra, Ghana., Ochalek J; Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E [Cost Eff Resour Alloc] 2022 Jul 16; Vol. 20 (1), pp. 32. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Jul 16.
DOI: 10.1186/s12962-022-00365-0
Abstrakt: Background: Although Ghana is lauded for its National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), concerns exist about the scheme's functioning and sustainability. An often-cited issue-contributing to the scheme's decreasing membership, long-standing financial deficit, and frequent out-of-pocket payments among members-is the large benefits package (BP). While, on paper, the BP covers over 95% of the conditions occurring in Ghana, its design was not informed by any budget analysis, nor any systematic prioritization of interventions. This paper aims to provide evidence-based input into ongoing discussions regarding a review of the NHIS benefits package.
Methods: An existing analytic framework is used to calculate net health benefit (NHB) for a range of interventions in order to assess their cost-effectiveness and enable the prioritization of 'best buys'. The framework is expanded upon by incorporating concerns for financial protection, and practical feasibility, as well as the political economy challenges of disinvesting in currently funded activities. Five different options for the benefits package, each based on policy discourse in Ghana's health sector, are presented and evaluated.
Results: Implementing all interventions for which data was available to 100% of the population in need was estimated to cost GH₵4323 million (US$994 million), while the available NHIS budget was only GH₵970 million (US$223 million). Options for the benefits package that focussed on cost-effectiveness and primary care provision achieved the best health outcomes, while options reflecting the status quo and allowing for co-payments included a higher number of healthcare interventions. Apart from the package option focussing on primary care, all packages were faced with physician shortages.
Conclusions: Current funding to the NHIS is insufficient to provide the historical benefits package, which promises to cover over 95% of disease conditions occurring in Ghana, to the total population. Shifting the NHIS focus from intervention coverage to population coverage is likely to lead to better health outcomes. A primary care package may be most feasible in the short-term, though additional physicians should be trained to provide higher-level care that is highly cost-effective, such as emergency neonatal care.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje