Rahab Mbau

Background: In 2018, Kenya’s Ministry of Health gazetted the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel (HBPAP) to develop a benefits package for its Universal Health Coverage (UHC) programme. In this study, we examine the political process that led to the gazettement of the HBPAP. Methods: We conducted a case study based on semi-structured interviews with 20 nationallevel participants and, reviews of documents such as organizational and media reports. We analyzed data from the interviews and documents thematically using the Braun and Clarke’s six step approach. We identified codes and themes deductively using Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory which postulates that the successful emergence of a policy follows coupling of three streams: the problem, policy, and politics streams. Results: We found that the problem stream was characterized by fragmented and implicit healthcare priority-setting processes that led to unaffordable, unsustainable, and wasteful benefits packages. A potential policy solution for these problems was the creation of an independent expert panel that would use an explicit and evidence-based healthcare prioritysetting process to develop an affordable and sustainable benefits package. The political stream was characterized by the re-election of the government and the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary for Health. Coupling of the problem, policy, and political streams occurred INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT (IJHPM) ONLINE ISSN: 2322-5939 JOURNAL HOMEPAGE: HTTPS://WWW.IJHPM.COM 3 during a policy window that was created by the political prioritization of UHC by the newly reelected government. Policy entrepreneurs who included health economists, health financing experts, health policy analysts, and health systems experts leveraged this policy window to push for the establishment of an independent expert panel as a solution for the issues identified in the problem stream. They employed strategies such as forming networks, framing, marshalling evidence and utilizing political connections. Conclusion: Applying Kingdon’s theory in this study was valuable in explaining why the HBPAP policy idea was gazetted. It demonstrated the crucial role of policy entrepreneurs and the strategies they employed to couple the three streams during a favourable policy window. This study contributes to the body of literature on healthcare priority-setting processes with an unusual analysis focused on a key procedural policy for such processes.

There is global interest in institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. However, institutionalization of HTA remains limited particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries. We conducted this scoping review to synthesize evidence on factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA at the macro (national)-level across countries globally. We searched for relevant literature in six databases namely PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, EconLit, and Google Scholar. We conducted the last search on December 31, 2021. We identified 77 articles that described factors that influence institutionalization of HTA across 135 high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We analyzed these articles thematically. We identified five sets of factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA across countries of different income levels. These factors include: (1) organizational resources such as organizational structures, and skilled human, financial, and information resources; (2) legal frameworks, policies, and guidelines for HTA; (3) learning and advocacy for HTA; (4) stakeholder-related factors such as stakeholders' interests, awareness, and understanding; and (5) collaborative support for HTA through international networks and non-governmental and multi-lateral organizations. Countries seeking to institutionalize HTA should map the availability of the factors identified in this review. Developing these factors wherever necessary can influence a country's capacity to institutionalize the conduct and use of HTA.

Background: There is a global interest in institutionalizing health technology assessment (HTA) as an approach for explicit healthcare priority-setting. Institutionalization of HTA refers to the process of conducting and utilizing HTA as a normative practice for guiding resource allocation decisions within the health system. In this study, we aimed to examine the factors that were influencing institutionalization of HTA in Kenya. Methods: We conducted a qualitative case study using document reviews and in-depth interviews with 30 participants involved in the HTA institutionalization process in Kenya. We used a thematic approach to analyze the data. Results: We found that institutionalization of HTA in Kenya was being supported by factors such as establishment of organizational structures for HTA; availability of legal frameworks and policies on HTA; increasing availability of awareness creation and capacity-building initiatives for HTA; policymakers’ interests in universal health coverage and optimal allocation of resources; technocrats’ interests in evidence-based processes; presence of international collaboration for HTA; and lastly, involvement of bilateral agencies. On the other hand, institutionalization of HTA was being undermined by limited availability of skilled human resources, financial resources, and information resources for HTA; lack of HTA guidelines and decision-making frameworks; limited HTA awareness among subnational stakeholders; and industries’ interests in safeguarding their revenue. Conclusions: Kenya’s Ministry of Health can facilitate institutionalization of HTA by adopting a systemic approach that involves: - (a) introducing long-term capacity-building initiatives to strengthen human and technical capacity for HTA; (b) earmarking national health budgets to ensure adequate financial resources for HTA; (c) introducing a cost database and promoting timely data collection to ensure availability of data for HTA; (d) developing context specific HTA guidelines and decision-making frameworks to facilitate HTA processes; (e) conducting deeper advocacy to strengthen HTA awareness among subnational stakeholders; and (f) managing stakeholders’ interests to minimize opposition to institutionalization of HTA.

Background There is a global interest in institutionalizing health technology assessment (HTA) as an approach for explicit healthcare priority-setting. Institutionalization of HTA refers to the process of conducting and utilizing HTA as a normative practice for guiding resource allocation decisions within the health system. In this study, we aimed to examine factors influencing institutionalization of HTA in Kenya. Methods We conducted a qualitative case study using document reviews and in-depth interviews with 30 participants involved in the HTA institutionalization process. We used a thematic approach to analyze the data. Results We found that institutionalization of HTA in Kenya was being supported by factors such as establishment of organizational structures for HTA; availability of legal frameworks and policies on HTA; increasing availability of awareness creation and capacity-building initiatives for HTA; policymakers’ interests in universal health coverage and optimal allocation of resources; technocrats’ interests in evidence-based processes; presence of international collaboration for HTA; and lastly, involvement of bilateral agencies. On the other hand, institutionalization of HTA was being undermined by limited availability of skilled human resources, financial resources, and information resources for HTA; lack of HTA guidelines and decision-making frameworks; limited HTA awareness among subnational stakeholders; and industries’ interests in safeguarding their revenue. Conclusions Kenya’s Ministry of Health can facilitate institutionalization of HTA by adopting a systemic approach that involves: - a) introducing long-term capacity-building initiatives to strengthen human and technical capacity for HTA; b) earmarking national health budgets to ensure adequate financial resources for HTA; c) introducing a cost database and promoting timely data collection to ensure availability of data for HTA; d) developing context specific HTA guidelines and decision-making frameworks to facilitate HTA processes; e) conducting deeper advocacy to strengthen HTA awareness among subnational stakeholders; and f) managing stakeholders’ interests to minimize opposition to institutionalization of HTA.

Kenya’s Ministry of Health established the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel (HBPAP) in 2018 to develop a benefits package for universal health coverage. This study evaluated HBPAP’s process for developing the benefits package against the normative procedural (acceptable way of doing things) and outcome (acceptable consequences) conditions of an ideal healthcare priority-setting process as outlined in the study’s conceptual framework. We conducted a qualitative case study using in-depth interviews with national-level respondents (n = 20) and document reviews. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. HBPAP’s process partially fulfilled the procedural and outcome conditions of the study’s evaluative framework. Concerning the procedural conditions, transparency and publicity were partially met and were limited by the lack of publication of HBPAP’s report. While HBPAP used explicit and evidence-based priority-setting criteria, challenges included lack of primary data and local cost-effectiveness threshold, weak health information systems, short timelines and political interference. While a wide range of stakeholders were engaged, this was limited by short timelines and inadequate financial resources. Empowerment of non-HBPAP members was limited by their inadequate technical knowledge and experience in priority-setting. Finally, appeals and revisions were limited by short timelines and lack of implementation of the proposed benefits package. Concerning the outcome conditions, stakeholder understanding was limited by the technical nature of the process and short timelines, while stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction were limited by lack of transparency. HBPAP’s benefits package was not implemented due to stakeholder interests and opposition. Priority-setting processes for benefits package development in Kenya could be improved by publicizing the outcome of the process, allocating adequate time and financial resources, strengthening health information systems, generating local evidence and enhancing stakeholder awareness and engagement to increase their empowerment, understanding and acceptance of the process. Managing politics and stakeholder interests is key in enhancing the success of priority-setting processes.

Efficiency gains is a potential strategy to expand Kenya’s fiscal space for health. We explored health sector stakeholders’ understanding of efficiency and their perceptions of the factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems in Kenya. We conducted a qualitative cross-sectional study and collected data using three focus group discussions during a stakeholder engagement workshop. Workshop participants included health sector stakeholders from the national ministry of health and 10 (out 47) county health departments, and non-state actors in Kenya. A total of 25 health sector stakeholders participated. We analysed data using a thematic approach. Health sector stakeholders indicated the need for the outputs and outcomes of a health system to be aligned to community health needs. They felt that both hardware aspects of the system (such as the financial resources, infrastructure, human resources for health) and software aspects of the system (such as health sector policies, public finance management systems, actor relationships) should be considered as inputs in the analysis of county health system efficiency. They also felt that while traditional indicators of health system performance such as intervention coverage or outcomes for infectious diseases, and reproductive, maternal, neonatal and child health are still relevant, emerging epidemiological trends such as an increase in the burden of non-communicable diseases should also be considered. The stakeholders identified public finance management, human resources for health, political interests, corruption, management capacity, and poor coordination as factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems. An in-depth examination of the factors that influence the efficiency of county health systems could illuminate potential policy levers for generating efficiency gains. Mixed methods approaches could facilitate the study of both hardware and software factors that are considered inputs, outputs or factors that influence health system efficiency. County health system efficiency in Kenya could be enhanced by improving the timeliness of financial flows to counties and health facilities, giving health facilities financial autonomy, improving the number, skill mix, and motivation of healthcare staff, managing political interests, enhancing anticorruption strategies, strengthening management capacity and coordination in the health sector.

Background: Kenya has prioritized the attainment of universal health coverage (UHC) through the expansion of health insurance coverage by the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF). In 2015, the NHIF introduced reforms in premium contribution rates, benefit packages, and provider payment methods. We examined the influence of these reforms on NHIF’s purchasing practices and their implications for strategic purchasing and health system goals of equity, efficiency and quality.Methods: We conducted an embedded case study with the NHIF as the case and the reforms as embedded units of analysis. We collected data at the national level and in two purposively selected counties through 41 in-depth interviews with health financing stakeholders, facility managers and frontline providers; 4 focus group discussions with 51 NHIF members; and, document reviews. We analysed the data using a Framework approach.Results: The new NHIF reforms were characterized by weak purchasing actions. Firstly, the new premium contribution rates were inadequately communicated and unaffordable for certain citizen groups. Secondly, while the new benefit packages were reported to be based on service needs, preferences and values of the population, they were inadequately communicated and unequally distributed across different citizen groups. In addition, the presence of service delivery infrastructure gaps in public healthcare facilities and the pro-urban and pro-private distribution of contracted health facilities compromised delivery of, and access to, these new services. Lastly, the new provider payment methods and rates were considered inadequate, with delayed payments and weak links to financial accountability mechanisms which compromised their ability to incentivize equity, efficiency and quality of healthcare delivery.Conclusion: While NHIF sought to expand population and service coverage and reduce out-of-pocket payments with the new reforms, weaknesses in the reforms’ design and implementation limited NHIF’s purchasing actions with negative implications for the health system goals of equity, efficiency and quality. For the reforms to accelerate the country’s progress towards UHC, policy makers at the NHIF and, national and county government should make deliberate efforts to align the design and implementation of such reforms with strategic purchasing actions that are aimed at improving health system goals.

Through a number of healthcare reforms, Kenya has demonstrated its intention to extend financial risk protection and service coverage for poor and vulnerable groups. These reforms include the provision of free maternity services, user-fee removal in public primary health facilities and a health insurance subsidy programme (HISP) for the poor. However, the available evidence points to inequity and the likelihood that the poor will still be left behind with regards to financial risk protection and service coverage. This study examined the experiences of the poor with health financing reforms that target them. We conducted a qualitative cross-sectional study in two purposively selected counties in Kenya. We collected data through focus group discussions (n = 8) and in-depth interviews (n = 30) with people in the lowest wealth quintile residing in the health and demographic surveillance systems, and HISP beneficiaries. We analyzed the data using a framework approach focusing on four healthcare access dimensions; geographical accessibility, affordability, availability, and acceptability. Health financing reforms reduced financial barriers and improved access to health services for the poor in the study counties. However, various access barriers limited the extent to which they benefited from these reforms. Long distances, lack of public transport, poor condition of the roads and high transport costs especially in rural areas limited access to health facilities. Continued charging of user fees despite their abolition, delayed insurance reimbursements to health facilities that HISP beneficiaries were seeking care from, and informal fees exposed the poor to out of pocket payments. Stock-outs of medicine and other medical supplies, dysfunctional medical equipment, shortage of healthcare workers, and frequent strikes adversely affected the availability of health services. Acceptability of care was further limited by discrimination by healthcare workers and ineffective grievance redress mechanisms which led to a feeling of disempowerment among the poor. Pro-poor health financing reforms improved access to care for the poor to some extent. However, to enhance the effectiveness of pro-poor reforms and to ensure that the poor in Kenya benefit fully from them, there is a need to address barriers to healthcare seeking across all access dimensions.

Health inequity has mainly been linked to differences in economic status, with the poor facing greater challenges accessing healthcare than the less poor. To extend financial coverage to the poor and vulnerable, Kenya has therefore implemented several pro-poor health policy reforms. However, other social determinants of health such as gender and disability also influence health status and access to care. This study employed an intersectional approach to explore how gender disability and poverty interact to influence how poor women in Kenya benefit from pro-poor financing policies that target them. We applied a qualitative cross-sectional study approach in two purposively selected counties in Kenya. We collected data using in-depth interviews with women with disabilities living in poverty who were beneficiaries of the health insurance subsidy programme and those in the lowest wealth quintiles residing in the health and demographic surveillance system. We analyzed data using a thematic approach drawing from the study’s conceptual framework. Women with disabilities living in poverty often opted to forgo seeking free healthcare services because of their roles as the primary household providers and caregivers. Due to limited mobility, they needed someone to accompany them to health facilities, leading to greater transport costs. The absence of someone to accompany them and unaffordability of the high transport costs, for example, made some women forgo seeking antenatal and skilled delivery services despite the existence of a free maternity programme. The layout and equipment at health facilities offering care under pro-poor health financing policies were disability-unfriendly. The latter in addition to negative healthcare worker attitudes towards women with disabilities discouraged them from seeking care. Negative stereotypes against women with disabilities in the society led to their exclusion from public participation forums thereby limiting their awareness about health services. Intersections of gender, poverty, and disability influenced the experiences of women with disabilities living in poverty with pro-poor health financing policies in Kenya. Addressing the healthcare access barriers they face could entail ensuring availability of disability-friendly health facilities and public transport systems, building cultural competence in health service delivery, and empowering them to engage in public participation.

Summary: Background: Purchasing in health care financing refers to the transfer of pooled funds to health care providers for the provision of health care services. There is limited empirical work on purchasing arrangements and what is required for strategic purchasing in low‐ and middle‐income countries. We conducted this study to critically assess the purchasing arrangements of the county departments of health (CDOH) who are the largest purchasers of health care in Kenya.Methods: We used a qualitative case study approach to assess the extent to which the purchasing actions of the CDOH in Kenya were strategic. We purposively sampled 10 counties and collected data using in‐depth interviews (n = 81), focus group discussions (n = 4), and documents review. We analyzed data using a framework approach.Results: County departments of health did not practice strategic purchasing. The government's (national and county) role as a steward for the purchasing function was characterized by poor accountability and inadequate budgetary allocations for service delivery. The absence of a purchaser‐provider split between the CDOH and public health care providers undermined provider selection based on performance and quality. Poor public participation and ineffective complaints and feedback mechanisms limited public accountability and responsiveness to the needs of the people.Conclusion: Our findings show that while there are frameworks that could promote strategic purchasing of the CDOH, strategic purchasing is impaired by poor implementation of these frameworks and the inherent weaknesses of a public integrated purchasing system that lacks purchaser‐provider split.