The journey to UHC

How well are vertical programmes integrated in the health benefits package? A scoping review

Bibliographic Data

ID21881455
AuthorsLydia Regan (0000-0002-3116-3844, Center for Global Development), David Wilson (0000-0002-6800-6447, Gates Foundation), K Chalkidou (0000-0002-7087-2803, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria), Y-Ling Chi (0000-0002-6902-0566, Center for Global Development)
Year2021
Volume6
Issue8
Pagese005842
Publication date2021-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBMJ Global Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2059-7908 • E-ISSN: 2059-7908
PublisherBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005842
PMID34344664
OpenAlexW3188336095
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited21

BACKGROUND: Countries are recommended to progressively work towards universal health coverage (UHC), and to make explicit choices regarding the expansion of priority services. However, there is little guidance on how to manage the inclusion of vertical programmes, funded by external partners, in health benefits packages (HBP) in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to map the inclusion of six vertical programmes (HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, contraceptives, immunisation) in 26 LMICs. METHODS: We identified 26 LMICs with an HBP that was not aspirational (eg, with evidence of implementation or funding). For each HBP, we collected information on the corresponding UHC scheme, health financing at the time of establishment, revisions since inception and entitlements. For each vertical programme, we developed a list of tracer interventions based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 and the 100 Core Health Indicators List. We then used this list of tracer interventions to map the coverage of the six vertical programmes. RESULTS: The review shows that there is no common starting point for countries embarking into UHC. Some HBPs were almost three decades old. Whole package revisions are rare. The inclusion of vertical programme does not follow a given pattern based on health financing indicators or country's income group. Maternal child health services are the most often included and family planning the least. Six countries in our sample covered all vertical programmes, while one covered only one of six. CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that there has been a long history of countries facing this question and we have provided the first mapping of inclusion of vertical programmes in UHC. The results of the mapping can inform decisions in countries embarking in UHC

Developing country · Economic growth · Economics · Environmental health · Psychological intervention · Global Maternal and Child Health · Healthcare Systems and Reforms · HIV/AIDS Impact and Responses · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology