BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is a common health policy objective outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals. With provincial governments taking the initiative, Pakistan has implemented and extended UHC program amid a complex public health landscape. In this context, we assess Pakistan\'s progress toward achieving UHC at the national and subnational level.
METHODS: We use data from the Demographic and Health Surveys and the Household Integrated Economic Survey to construct a UHC index at the national and subnational level for 2007, 2013, and 2018. Furthermore, we use Concentration Index (CI) and CI decomposition methodologies to assess the primary drivers of inequality in accessing medical services. Logistic regression and Sartori\'s two-step model are applied to examine the key determinants of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE).
RESULTS: Our analysis underscores Pakistan\'s steady progress toward UHC, while revealing significant provincial disparities in UHC progress. Provinces with lower poverty rate achieve higher UHC index, which highlights the synergy of poverty alleviation and UHC expansion. Among the examined indicators, child immunization remains a key weakness that one third of the children are not fully vaccinated and one sixth of these not-fully-vaccinated children have never received any vaccination. Socioeconomic status emerges as a main contributor to disparities in accessing medical services, albeit with a declining trend over time. Household socioeconomic status is negatively correlated with CHE incidence, indicating that wealthier households are less susceptible to CHE. For individuals experiencing CHE, medicine expenditure takes the highest share of their health spending, registering a staggering 70% in 2018.
CONCLUSIONS: Pakistan\'s progress toward UHC aligns closely with its economic development trajectory and policy efforts in expanding UHC program. However, economic underdevelopment and provincial disparities persist as significant hurdles on Pakistan\'s journey toward UHC. We suggest continued efforts in UHC program expansion with a focus on policy consistency and fiscal support, combined with targeted interventions to alleviate poverty in the underdeveloped provinces.

BACKGROUND: India launched a national health insurance scheme named Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) in 2018 as a key policy for universal health coverage. The ambitious scheme covers 100 million poor households. None of the studies have examined its impact on the quality of care. The existing studies on the impact of AB-PMJAY on financial protection have been limited to early experiences of its implementation. Since then, the government has improved the scheme\'s design. The current study was aimed at evaluating the impact of AB-PMJAY on improving utilisation, quality, and financial protection for inpatient care after four years of its implementation.
METHODS: Two annual waves of household surveys were conducted for years 2021 and 2022 in Chhattisgarh state. The surveys had a sample representative of the state\'s population, covering around 15,000 individuals. Quality was measured in terms of patient satisfaction and length of stay. Financial protection was measured through indicators of catastrophic health expenditure at different thresholds. Multivariate adjusted models and propensity score matching were applied to examine the impacts of AB-PMJAY. In addition, the instrumental variable method was used to address the selection problem.
RESULTS: Enrollment under AB-PMJAY was not associated with increased utilisation of inpatient care. Among individuals enrolled under AB-PMJAY who utilised private hospitals, the proportion incurring catastrophic health expenditure at the threshold of 10% of annual consumption expenditure was 78.1% and 70.9% in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The utilisation of private hospitals was associated with greater catastrophic expenditure irrespective of AB-PMJAY coverage. Enrollment under AB-PMJAY was not associated with reduced out-of-pocket expenditure or catastrophic health expenditure.
CONCLUSIONS: AB-PMJAY has achieved a large coverage of the population but after four years of implementation and an evidence-based increase in reimbursement prices for hospitals, it has not made an impact on improving utilisation, quality, or financial protection. The private hospitals contracted under the scheme continued to overcharge patients, and purchasing was ineffective in regulating provider behaviour. Further research is recommended to assess the impact of publicly funded health insurance schemes on financial protection in other low- and middle-income countries.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Kerala has initiated many Universal Health Coverage (UHC) reforms in the last decade. The Aardram Mission launched in 2017 stands out owing to its scope, objectives, and commitments for strengthening Primary Health Care (PHC) in the State. The current study proposes to explore access and financial protection through the lens of equity in Kerala especially in the context of major UHC reforms carried out during the last decade. This paper will also highlight the key lessons from Kerala\'s approach towards UHC and health systems strengthening through a political economy approach.
METHODS: Data from the Kerala state sample of 75th Round (2017-18) National Sample Survey is used for this study. Comparison is also drawn from the 71st Round Sample Survey, 2014, to measure the state\'s progress in terms of access and financial protection. Logistic regression was used for the calculation. The findings were further explored through a political economy approach.
RESULTS: The share of public facilities for outpatient care is 47.5%, which is a significant increase from 34.0% (in 2014) in the state. The share of public sector for out-patient care has increased for the lower socio-economic population in the state. The share of public sector for in-patient care has also increased to 37.3% in 2017-18 from 33.9% in 2014, but not to the extent as the increase shown in outpatient care. The average out-of-pocket-expenditure during hospitalization has increased more in private facilities as compared to public for both outpatient care and hospitalization.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall increase in the share of public facilities for both outpatient care and hospitalization is indicative of the enhanced trust among the people at large of the public healthcare delivery system in Kerala, post the launch of UHC reforms in the State. The insurance linked UHC reforms would be insufficient for the State to progress further towards UHC. Kerala with a long and successful history in \'public provisioning\' should focus more on strengthening PHC through Aardram Mission in its journey towards pursuit of UHC.

BACKGROUND: Pakistan developed its first national Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS) as a key step towards accelerating progress in achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). We describe the rationale, aims, the systematic approach followed to EPHS development, methods adopted, outcomes of the process, challenges encountered, and lessons learned.
METHODS: EPHS design was led by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination. The methods adopted were technically guided by the Disease Control Priorities 3 Country Translation project and existing country experience. It followed a participatory and evidence-informed prioritisation and decision-making processes.
RESULTS: The full EPHS covers 117 interventions delivered at the community, health centre and first-level hospital platforms at a per capita cost of US$29.7. The EPHS also includes an additional set of 12 population-based interventions at US$0.78 per capita. An immediate implementation package (IIP) of 88 district-level interventions costing US$12.98 per capita will be implemented initially together with the population-based interventions until government health allocations increase to the level required to implement the full EPHS. Interventions delivered at the tertiary care platform were also prioritised and costed at US$6.5 per capita, but they were not included in the district-level package. The national EPHS guided the development of provincial packages using the same evidence-informed process. The government and development partners are in the process of initiating a phased approach to implement the IIP.
CONCLUSIONS: Key ingredients for a successful EPHS design requires a focus on package feasibility and affordability, national ownership and leadership, and solid engagement of national stakeholders and development partners. Major challenges to the transition to implementation are to continue strengthening the national technical capacity, institutionalise priority setting and package design and its revision in ministries of health, address health system gaps and bridge the current gap in financing with the progressive increase in coverage towards 2030.

BACKGROUND: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages.
METHODS: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process.
RESULTS: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.

BACKGROUND: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan\'s approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process.
METHODS: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GH-CEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation.
RESULTS: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.

The Federal Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (MNHSR&C) in Pakistan has committed to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030 by providing an Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS). Starting in 2019, the Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition (DCP3) evidence framework was used to guide the development of Pakistan\'s EPHS. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of a rapid costing approach used to inform the EPHS design process.
A total of 167 unit costs were calculated through a context-specific, normative, ingredients-based, and bottom-up economic costing approach. Costs were constructed by determining resource use from descriptions provided by MNHSR&C and validated by technical experts. Price data from publicly available sources were used. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out.
Unit costs ranged from 2019 US$ 0.27 to 2019 US$ 1478. Interventions in the cancer package of services had the highest average cost (2019 US$ 837) while interventions in the environmental package of services had the lowest (2019 US$ 0.68). Cost drivers varied by platform; the two largest drivers were drug regimens and surgery-related costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest our results are not sensitive to changes in staff salary but are sensitive to changes in medicine pricing.
We estimated a large number of context-specific unit costs, over a six-month period, demonstrating a rapid costing method suitable for EPHS design.

Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made.
Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness.
Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion.
Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.

Pakistan developed an essential package of health services at the primary healthcare (PHC) level as a key component of health reforms aiming to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). This supplement describes the methods and processes adopted for evidence-informed prioritization of services, policy decisions adopted, and the lessons learned in package design as well as in the transition to effective rollout. The papers conclude that evidence-informed deliberative processes can be effectively applied to design affordable packages of services that represent good value for money and address a major part of the disease burden. Transition to implementation requires a comprehensive assessment of health system gaps, strong engagement of the planning and financing sectors, serious involvement of key national stakeholders and the private health sector, capacity building, and institutionalization of technical and managerial skills. Pakistan\'s experience highlights the need for updating the evidence and model packages of the Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) initiative and reinforcing international collaboration to support technical guidance to countries in priority setting and UHC reforms.