Does Egypt adopt pro-poor health policies?

Towards a fairer and accountable Egyptian health care system

In an event, organized on March 1-3, 2013 in the beautiful city of Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt, debating the theme of “health insurance for the poor”, one of the distinguished  presenters, Dr. Cristian Baeza,  stated the following “ a segregated system for the poor proved to be a poor system”.   Later in his presentation, he followed by stating “universal means the entire population, but paying particular attention to the poor is critical as they are historically postponed and not prioritized”.  Cristian was presenting lessons learned from countries from Latin America on their experiences in expanding universal health insurance coverage.  The question begged itself, “What does this mean for Egypt?” 

Before the January 25^th revolution, national health policy was applied universally with no particular priority set for improving health outcomes of the poor.  Allocations of budgetary funds for the health sector followed Ministry of Finance budget lines with no priority set for lagging regions or for those falling behind across population groups. With expected upcoming reforms to Egypt’s subsidy system, poverty rates would increase by several percentage points warranting putting in place a pro-poor health policy for protection of the poor and the vulnerable.

Traditionally, Egypt’s budget allocations are fragmented among a number of competing publicly-funded programs that hinder Egypt’s ability to pool risks and compromises Egypt’s path towards achieving universal health coverage.  The results of the health care system reflect evidence of unfairness.  In terms of health status, the nationwide progress made in reducing mortality among women, infants and children is not evenly distributed resulting in growing disparities in achieving MDG 4 (child mortality) and MDG 5 (maternal health) across geographic regions and income quintiles.  In terms of financial protection, the inability to protect the Egyptians from the impoverishing effects of health expenditures, especially against catastrophic illness is significant:  (i) the ongoing Social Health Insurance (SHI) excludes the poor as well as those who are in the informal sector, self-employed farmers or rural residents; and (ii) access to the Program for the Treatment on Expense of State (PTES) is also inequitable.  All resulted in three fourth of total health expenditure being spent out of pocket. In terms of client satisfaction and system responsiveness, service utilization by the poorest quintile of the population is the lowest for all types of health services, although the poor are more likely to utilize public health facilities than the better-off groups.  These are all consequences of the lack of a specific pro-poor health policy. 

Following the revolution for the last two years, governments and ministers of health were struggling to find ways to translate social justice into health programs that could reach the poor.  We’ve witnessed an active civil society movement organizing events and seminars, writing blogs and facebook threads going deep into discussing the nature of these programs and presenting serious proposals.  On the governmental side, A social health insurance law is in the making promising to cover the cost of premiums for the poor, however, with uncertainty about its sources of funding.  Already, a Law for expanding health insurance coverage of female-headed households has been issued; however, with a low turnout of beneficiaries showing up for enrollment.  A social justice budget was proposed to inject more funds in ongoing programs perceived to be underfunded such as Free Health Care, Program for the Treatment on the Expense of State, or for subsidized drugs and milk formula, and possibly fund school feeding programs.  However, the question remains: are these good examples of pro-poor programs?  Would they lead to a fairer health care system?

Recognizing the need for developing health policies and programs that promotes fairness and accountability in Egypt is essential and a first step.  A following and needed second step is to examine the ongoing health programs through a lens that can judge if these policies and programs are pro-poor or not. A third step will be to develop a health policy that keeps and consolidate those programs which are not only pro-poor but also efficient and effective, and ensuring that they are an integral part of the overall health care system.

 

Egypt’s Stunted Children: A Silent Cry of Social Injustice

Improving Health Outcomes of the Poor – A Social Justice Agenda for Egypt (2)

While Egypt has made impressive progress on each of the MDGs especially MDG 4 and 5, it continues to face challenges with MDG 1 relating to the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. Moreover, regional disparities and gender inequalities continue to persist across governorates.

Malnutrition in Egypt is increasing.  In 2008, the prevalence of malnutrition increased than those figures reported in both 2000 and 2005.  Nationwide, 29% of children under the age of five are stunted, 6% are underweight, and 7% are wasted. The situation is likely to have further deteriorated since the continuing political instability following Egypt’s revolution at the start of 2011 as recently announced by CAPMAS indicating an increase in unemployment rates to 11.9% in September 2011 and poverty to 25% in 2012. National averages, however, obscure vast regional differences in undernutrition prevalence.

Nutrition is central to human and economic development.  Malnutrition frequently escapes full attention, and as a result is referred to as “the silent disaster.”  It rarely attracts the attention of policy and decision makers and never was on their agenda.  The most affected people are the poor, who lack a political voice preventing them from adequately demanding interventions to combat malnutrition, even if they realize that the problem exists.   Malnutrition is a barrier for development, and a determinant for economic development and poverty reduction, health status, and educational attainment, and its reduction is central to achieving these broader development goals.

The Window of Opportunity must be sized to avoid irreversible damage. Children who are undernourished between conception and age two are at high risk for impaired irreversible cognitive development and stunting, which adversely affects the country’s productivity and growth. Interventions outside this window of opportunity would only provide relief measures but will not be able to reverse the damage that happened.

The Cost of malnutrition is high for Egypt. Over one-third of child deaths are due to undernutrition, mostly from increased severity of disease. The economic costs of undernutrition and overweight include direct costs such as the increased burden on the health care system, and indirect costs of lost productivity. Childhood anemia alone is associated with a 2.5% drop in adult wages. The current economic crisis and its potential impact on the poor make investing in child nutrition more urgent than ever to protect and strengthen human capital in the most vulnerable groups in Egypt.

What is Stunting? Stunting implies long-term undernutrition and poor health among young children, measured as height-for-age. It is a striking form of social injustice. It means that stunted children were not allowed to attain their potential height and will be shorter than their peers.  Their IQ could probably be lower than their peers and will be less able to learn and accordingly will be less able to compete for jobs.

Three in ten Egyptian children under the age of five are stunted. Of these three, at least one is severely stunted. Lower Egypt Governorates have the highest rates of stunting, where one third of children U5 living in rural areas are stunted, and four in ten children U5 in urban areas are stunted. 

Surprisingly, neither the mother’s education nor the wealth quintiles, the usual suspects of bad indicators, affected the prevalence of stunting amongst children U5. The question remains: “why almost one third of Egypt’s children are stunted and on the increase, when all other health indicators are improving?” Maybe because it is not a health problem.  Unicef concludes that socioeconomic factors do not seem to have effect on the chronic malnutrition levels observed amongst Egyptian children and may suggest that there are a number of complex factors interfering with the proper nutrition of children. 

This means that more food or cash is probably not the solution, and it might be behavior related.  An intervention is needed that combines (i) behavior change including promotion of breastfeeding, appropriate complementary feeding practices (but excluding provision of food), and proper hygiene, specifically handwashing; and (ii) complementary and therapeutic feeding for the prevention and treatment of moderate malnutrition among children 6–23 months of age, and management of severe acute malnutrition among children under five years of age.

The key demand side package of service for such a problem is the promotion of optimal Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) practices and adequate nutrition during pregnancy.  It proved to be of a high potential to reduce malnutrition at relatively low cost and most effective if applied during the first 1000 days of life, from conception to 24 months as the effects of malnutrition are still reversible. However, these programs are difficult to implement without an adequate incentive for behavior change and usually better implemented by NGOs at community level. 

Beneficiaries would use existing health services provided by the MOHP for supply side services for treatment of moderate and severe malnutrition, for which the poorest districts with good functioning primary health care services would be selected.

Egypt, starting with Lower Egypt, will need an intervention that address both the demand and supply side of the problem at the same time with strong referral system between them through public private partnerships established between those implementing demand side services and those implementing supply side services.    

Until we meet again...

Improving Health Outcomes of the Poor – A Social Justice Agenda for Egypt

Health outcomes are usually measured in terms of the ability of health systems to introduce improvements in three areas: (i) health status; (ii) financial protection; and (iii) client satisfaction and dignity.  The challenges related to these health outcomes reflect an attention and priority to be provided to the poor and those potentially who could fall in poverty, an opportunity for adoption of a social justice agenda.

These challenges, which mainly indicate unfairness to the least advantaged group of the society, could be shortly summarized as follows:

In terms of health status, inequity that could be observed in disparities in achieving MDG 4 (child mortality) and MDG 5 (maternal health) across geographic regions and income quintiles.  Inequity is demonstrated by the persistent prevalence of high level of stunting, strongly linked to poverty. With the expected increase of non-communicable diseases and the high prevalence of hepatitis C, the burden of disease is expected to increase on Egyptians, especially the poor and probably would drive more people into poverty.

In terms of financial protection, the inability to protect the Egyptians from the impoverishing effects of health expenditures especially against catastrophic illness is significant.  This is presented by coverage of about half of the population with Social Health Insurance (SHI), inequity to access to Program for the Treatment on Expense of State (PTES), and that three fourths of total health expenditure is out of pocket.

In terms of client Satisfaction and system responsiveness, a nationwide dissatisfaction with the health care system presented by the high utilization rates and number of visits at private sector providers and the very low utilization rates at public health facilities. Further, utilization rates of the poor are the lowest among different income quintiles for all types of health services, although the poor are more likely to utilize public health facilities than the better off groups emphasizing the phenomenon of inequity.

There are other cross cutting developmental challenges that would affect the outcomes of the health sector that are important to consider such as stagnated fertility rates, high level of illiteracy, poor outcomes of the education system, high unemployment rates especially among the youth and in particularly among women, low rates and inequitable sanitation coverage, the rise and potential endemicity of avian flu, lack of proper social safety net to the poor, strong social and cultural factors expected to increase that would affect women empowerment. These would emphasize that parallel attention should be provided equally to the least advantaged in other sectors.

Positioning social justice at the center of the health sector agenda, taking in consideration the slogans that were raised by the January 25^th revolution and its context, would present a non-controversial theme to set related goals for the next five-year strategy as part of Egypt’s transition in the health sector.  This theme would be presented as Improving Health Outcomes of the Poor, as the least advantaged group of people in the society.  

A social justice agenda would naturally focus on the poor based on principles of distributive justice, a key principle would be the Difference Principle.  This principle stipulates that social and economic inequalities would be allowed in a community as long as they work to satisfy two conditions: (a) a fair equality of opportunity for all to compete for positions and offices; and (b) they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.  Its main moral motivation is to provide equal respect for persons whatever their social or natural status.  In order for that to happen, the least advantaged members of the society will be prioritized by redistributing resources to benefit them from the better off to raise their health status to a level equal to those in higher quintiles of income of the population, and that as a result this would allow them to have equal opportunity to compete for jobs and earn income. As well as it presents a favorable redistribution to those most affected group of the population in terms of poor health outcomes.

Improving the health outcomes of the poor would significantly contribute to improve Egypt's health goals and indicators in total, as the concentration of poor performance of the health system resides in poor areas.  

Setting goals under this theme would then focus on three elements that could be quantified:

(i)     improving the health status of the poor in specific regions (Regions such as Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt, Frontier governorates; or governorates such as Sohag, Assiut, Sharkia; or districts such as urban slums)

(ii)     protecting the population and especially the poor from the impoverishing effects of health expenditure and the near poor from getting poor

(iii)     seeking the poor’s satisfaction of service provision and treating them in a manner that preserves their dignity

If we pursue that route, we should be looking for improvements to be achieved at the health systems level to achieve the theme of improving health outcomes of the poor that would represent a possible continuation to the earlier efforts of reform of the health sector that started in 1996/1997 and hopefully coincides with it but with a more sharpened focus on the poor. This will be the subject of future posts

Until we meet again....

Egypt’s Transition in the Health Sector: The Need for a Transition Plan for Universal Coverage

Egypt's Transition towards a Third Wave of Health Sector Reform (3)

Egypt’s Transition is currently understood and related to the role of a transitional government until an elected government is in place.  A Minister of Health’s role in a transitional government is difficult to define and if defined challenging to achieve.  This role was proposed in an earlier post to focus on restoring people’s confidence in the health sector, raising health staff moral, and paving the way for a third wave of health sector reform.  In all cases and after two waves of pilot health sector reforms as explained in an earlier post , an elected government would be expected to lead a third wave of reform based on a health care system suitable for Egypt that would replace the existing pluralistic and fragmented health care system.  That system that was not able to achieve two of its health outcomes: (i) financial protection; and (ii) client satisfaction considering that Egypt is progressing fairly well on achieving many of the Health Millennium Development Goals. 

A longer transition to achieve universal coverage that depends on a major health care sector system that leads (more likely dominates) the financing and delivery of health care services in Egypt will be required.  The decision of that kind of health care system is expected to be one of two options as explained in an earlier post: 


The first option is a social health insurance led system that is more reliant on tax revenues and is capturing some of the tax-based finance system functions.  In that case, SHI will be based on financing from contributions from those who can afford to contribute based on their ability to pay subsidized by government contributions to cover the premiums and co-payments for those who cannot afford to pay either totally or partially.  In that case, government’s contributions should be expected to come from the country’s general revenues and to be tax-based, preferably not based on ear-marked taxes.  This would represent a natural continuation of the second wave of reform and its pilot in Suez. 

Universal coverage would likely be achieved in stages as explained in a related post. However, The speed of this coverage would depend on Egypt’s ability to face a number of challenges, as discussed in a previous post, in terms of: (i) its ability to recover from the aftershocks of the revolution and resume its pre-revolution high growth rate, as well increase its level of GNI; (ii) its ability to formalize its economy with protected jobs; (iii) its ability to become more urbanized; (iv) its ability of building its health insurance administration system; (v) its level of poverty and society’s willingness to cross-subsidize the poor; (vi) its ownership of an efficient and functional provider network; and (vii) its ability to regulate. 

There will be additional specific key factors related to Egypt and its historical path to achieve universal coverage such as its payroll salary scale.  Current employer and employees contributions are based on basic salaries.  Once contributions are calculated on the basis of total salary (basic + variable), not only will the employee will pay much higher contributions, but also the employer will also need to carry the burden of higher expenditures.  In many cases, the employer will be the government which will mean additional burden on its already very tight budget, and in some cases it will be the public and private sector which will create burden on its products cost structure and will increase its prices, probably pushing inflation higher and driving more of the small enterprises into informality to evade its insurance contribution.

The second option is a national health led system which is tax-based with a directly managed provider network shifting to a purchaser-provider-contracting model. In that case, NHS will be based on financing from general revenues.  This system is more likely to declare universal coverage at a national scale in an earlier phase than a health care system based on SHI but probably will not be able to do that in reality.  The reality will be the same as an SHI based system, actual universal coverage will also happen in stages.  The key major challenge is that the NHS would require much more funding from the government to replace the contributions from employers and employees that would ease the funding.  This would mean that the government will need to allocate more budgets from the general revenues.  

On the positive side, an NHS might spend less based on some claims, produce better health outcomes due to its better ability to integrate with public health programs, would require less complicated structures to run the system, and would less impact the labor markets than SHI.  It is also a system that MOH would prefer to pursue given its proximity to its thinking and given the familiarity of its staff with its service delivery mechanism.  People might be more comfortable with this system as it doesn’t require them to contribute, unless user fees and co-payments are applied.

The purchase-provider-contracting model, within an NHS, might be a solution to resolve many of the inherent problems of an NHS in terms of system performance and client satisfaction, if it is complemented with strong regulation and quality standards.  Payment for Performance mechanisms would then represent a key feature of paying public health providers in the form of performance based financing.  As well, contracting not for profit non-governmental organizations that have access to the general population for secondary health care would be another key feature in the form of performance based contracting. 

In both cases, described above, a transition plan will need to be in place before embarking on its implementation and before that an explicit decision will need to be made by the elected government and the people’s assembly about the health care system to be adopted.  A transitional government  would be expected not to adopt one of the above mentioned systems before allowing a broad discussion among health sector stakeholders and the people about their system of preference as they will have to live with its consequences and will be obliged to commit funds for its financing probably by sacrificing other developmental priorities. 

Until we meet again....

Egypt’s Transition in the Health Sector: Opportunity for Raising Staff Moral & Restoring People's Confidence

Egypt's Transition towards a Third Wave of Health Sector Reform (2)

Egypt’s health sector has entered into a transition since its Cabinet has resigned in January 2011. The spirit of the revolution empowered health sector staff and a number of activists to raise a number of issues on their priority list.  A number of facebook groups interested in the health sector were formed allowing extensive exchange of views and in some cases lobbying for their views.   Monitoring feedback from these groups, the key issues raised were related to: (i) health workforce management and compensation; (ii) organization, governance and leadership of the health sector; (iii) health sector finance; (iv) responsiveness of the health system; and (v) quality of service delivery.   A common theme presented dissatisfaction with the performance of the health sector and an explicit sense of low morale.

On the positive side, these groups proposed solutions for the problems raised by them. One specific group, the Egypt Health Sector Reform Group, on its page proposed a list of priority actions to be tackled during Egypt’s transition.  Some of these are of short-term nature potentially capable of producing quick wins, as well could pave the way for a third wave of health sector reform once an elected government is in place.  

The purpose of this blog is to present an excerpt of this brainstorming, as I understood it.  Following a health systems framework, TWO proposed priority actions were selected under each element of this framework possibly feasible to be accomplished during the transition. It’s a message to those who are or will be in a decision making position in the health sector from those who are interested in the future of that sector.

Objectives

Two key objectives to be achieved during the transition could be defined:

1. Raising the morale of health sector staff and restoring people’s confidence in the management of the health sector and its services provision
2. Preparing for the period after the transition

Activities

Objective 1: Raising Staff Moral and Restoring People’s Confidence in the Health Sector

1.       Increase responsiveness of the health service delivery system in terms of improved coverage, utilization, and quality of health services and accordingly client satisfaction and people’s confidence in the health sector

·         Through introducing improvements in the public health system by addressing priority gaps in service delivery and treating patients with respect.

·         Through expanding health service delivery by partnering with the civil society and contracting NGOs for a minimum quality of service delivery agreed upon for a defined package of services 

2.       Motivation of health workforce and raising staff morale

·         Introduction of payment for performance for the health workforce to improve staff compensation for better performance, quality, and system responsiveness taking in consideration different incentives for different geographic locations.

·         Training of middle management for preparation of calibers needed for management and potential for staffing for senior management.

3.       Making available funds by reallocation from other sources

·         From the newly allocated budget for the Program for Treatment on the Expense of State; and from investment budget lines for payment for services for CSOs (as mentioned above), payment for performance for public health sector staff, and procurement of drugs, supplies, maintenance, and training.

·         Postponing the social health insurance law until an elected people’s assembly is in place to decide about the health system appropriate for Egypt

4.       Improving Governance

·         Establishing of an independent Quality Organization to accredit public and NGO providers for a defined package of services

·         The separation between the payor and provision functions within the organizational structure of the Health Insurance Organization.

Objective 2: Preparing the Health Sector for the period after transition

·         Broad participation by key health stakeholders in discussions on Egypt’s health sector problems and its possible solutions including reaching a consensus on the health system  that Egypt should adopt (National Health System or Social Health Insurance) based on the society’s values and expectations.

·         Joint Expert/Politician Reviews to the health sector to prepare a paper on Egypt’s vision for the health sector

·         Based on the health sector vision, an Expert team to prepare a Health Sector Strategy.

Egypt's Transition towards a Third Wave of Health Sector Reform

Following the January 25^th revolution, Egypt’s health sector started a period of transition which will be difficult to define how long it will take.  Since then, three Ministers were in charge with no success of being approved by the public or health sector staff posing an immense challenge for whoever will be in charge during the transition.  Dissatisfaction is due to presence of high expectations, absence of priority setting on few areas that could be accomplished, and absence of indicators to measure success of a transition. 

This transition is expected to be followed by a third wave of reform.  Lack of presence of strategic directions for a potential third wave of reform will hinder efforts to design and implement the transition.  A third wave of reform will be expected if we will look backwards at history of reform Egypt encountered. Reform phases could be classified as; (i) Pre-reform phase (before 1997) focusing on improving maternal/child health and fertility outcomes; (ii) First Reform Wave (1997-2005) focused on universal coverage through adopting a national health system; and (iii) Second Reform Wave (2006-2010) focused on expanding universal coverage through adopting social health insurance.

Pre-reform Phase (Before 1997)

This phase focused on improving health outcomes at primary health care targeting improvements in maternal and child health as well as fertility outcomes implemented by a number of vertical programs at primary health care level. Efforts towards efficiency focused on integration of child health services at primary health care level and on cost recovery at hospital care level, while efforts towards universal coverage and protection focused on expanding health insurance coverage, compulsory to school children and voluntary to pre-school children. 

The First Wave of Health Reform (1997-2005). 

Irrespective of its original design, this wave adopted a national health system (NHS) approach to achieve universal coverage – starting a pilot in five governorates.  It was led by the Ministry of Health (MoH), which was convenient given the ministry’s familiarity with NHS considering this reform as a natural continuation of its original work.  On the other hand, the Health Insurance Organization (HIO), which also was envisaged to be reformed, was not much involved and continued its role as originally assigned to it.  This phase introduced: (i) Family Health Services and its accreditation; (ii) needs based health facility planning; and (iii) payment for performance using Family Health Funds partially, an attempt to separate provision of services from its management.  Training of health workforce and quality were key factors increasing utilization, while user fees reversed gains in utilization. 

The Second Wave of Reform (2006-2010)

This phase adopted a social health insurance system (SHI) approach to achieve universal coverage - starting a pilot in one governorate; however, design was developed “as we go” and with a tendency to be conservative in expanding coverage.  The characteristic explicit shift in strategy from NHS to SHI was based on a policy paper prepared by the previous National Democratic Party (NDP), followed by a Presidential declaration in Sohag in 2005.  This shift forced a new stakeholder, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), to have a significant role in decision making during this phase.  This phase was partially led by HIO, with difficulties to reach consensus and the recognition for the need of additional studies to understand the fiscal implications of SHI on the budget.  Regretfully, a number of features developed under the first wave were dropped along the way.

The Transition

We are now in a transitional period, before a third wave of reform starts.  It might be prudent during this period to set modest objectives for this phase instead of trying to reform the whole system or passing critical laws such as SHI law.  It might be worthy to reach consent on the health system that would reflect the values of the people before embarking on Egypt’s third wave of reform.  Two sets of questions will need to be posed:

Are the people willing to accommodate the idea that reform will take longer than what they would expect, and are they willing to work in stages or phases with realistic objectives instead of full blown reforms?

If so,

What would be the priorities for the transition period and its minimum objectives, and how to measure its success? 

Two areas of priority could be identified to be demanded by the people and health sector staff during transition.  These are:

(1)    Governance and Anticorruption

(2)    Health Workforce. 

These are two broad areas that need to be further defined to ensure feasibility and successful implementation and to fairly hold a Minister of Health accountable for his or her performance of this period. Improvements in these two areas could reflect substantially on improvement in the provision of health care that could be favorably received by the people. 

Until we meet again....

Is Social Health Insurance the Right Health Financing System for Egypt?

Egypt's Road towards Social Health Insurance - The Road to be Traveled (7)

At a time when Egypt is doing relatively well in reducing its child and maternal mortality, while facing extreme pressure on its budget to meet various demands by the public, in presence of notable inefficiencies in the health system presented mainly by fragmentation in the financing and the delivery of health services, and at a time when a draft social health insurance is presented for public discussion in a post-revolutionary situation that might allow to revisit health strategies designed in an earlier phase of reform, a question might be  posed before a final decision is made. Should Egypt stick to Social Health Insurance (SHI) as its main health financing strategy or could a better alternative scheme be available for Egypt to adopt. Is it too late to ask that question?

Governments usually aim to achieve universal coverage for health care for their people and people usually demands a health care system that meet their needs in terms of improved health, financial protection, and a system that is responsive and treat them with dignity.  To achieve that in Egypt, continues efforts have been put to reform the health care system increasingly since 1997; however, with modest efforts to include the public in that reform.  

Looking back, it is intriguing to note that during the last 60 years almost every attempt to reform the health sector in Egypt aiming to achieve this universal coverage promoting one health system or another as a means to achieve this end, ends up with an application of mixed and fragmented systems that were not able to meet the expectations demanded by the people.  I’ve always encountered this statement recurring in many international and national reports describing the health system in Egypt as “a pluralistic health system, consisting of a number of parallel public and private health care delivery systems and multiple financing intermediaries”.  The attempts to reform were not able to address this plurality and usually lead to more fragmentation of the system either at the delivery and/ or at the financing side ending up in a health system with multiple personalities.

The origin of this fragmentation has started a few decades ago, probably in the 50s and 60s, when two sets of parallel legalizations established the foundation for treatment on the expense of state (Presidential Decree 1754 in 1959 followed by Presidential Decree 1069 in 1964) and social health insurance (Law 75 in 1963 and Presidential Decree 1209 in 1964), probably trying to satisfy the demand of the people for better health care as well as a translation to Egypt’s constitutions placing the responsibility of provision of health care (Constitution 1956) and social insurance (Constitution 1964) including health to all Egyptians on the state.  These were followed by multiple additional decisions that further fragmented the delivery side that led to the proliferation of a number of governmental and public services delivery systems in addition to those of the Ministry of Health.  

And the question is “why is this happening?” Which system would be better for Egypt? A system based on general revenues and taxes or a system based on social health insurance?

Those who are in favor of tax-based systems argue for their system based on three points: (i) SHI discourages firms from hiring workers, and hence reduces employment and encourages informal labor markets; (ii) lack of coverage among certain groups during the often long period between establishing SHI and achieving universal coverage, and (iii) systematic variations in benefit packages and quality of care across subpopulations. 

On the other hand, those who promote SHI do that based on two points: (i) SHI provides an important additional source of revenue for the health system; (ii) by separating the purchasing of health care from its provision and encouraging selective contracting between providers (including private sector ones), SHI systems are able to achieve better quality health care at a lower cost than tax-financed health systems.

Certain studies focusing on studying the impact of these health systems on health outcomes in OECD countries suggested that SHI systems, on balance (i) have certain characteristics that make them more expensive than tax-financed systems,  (ii) do no better in terms of most health outcomes that are amenable to medical care despite the extra spending, (iii) may do worse in respect of outcomes that require strong population-level public health programs, and (iv) do worse in terms of encouraging informal labor markets and discouraging employment.  The findings of this study raise the following questions:

•  Why do we apply a system that could cost us more with no additional improvement in health outcomes at a time when budgets are tight? Would this contribute to efficiency?
•  Why do we apply a system that could increase informality in the employment sector when already two thirds of those working are informal workers without protection? Would this contribute to financial and social protection?
• Are there dangers on our achievements in public health? As SHI systems focus on individual members, or even families, would we lose the focus on the entire population by public health programs financed by tax-financed systems?  Would this contribute to improved health status and outcomes?

All of the above would lead to the following question, and another two subsidiary questions?

Can we apply in Egypt a system that can capture the better of the two systems and avoid their problems?

Question 1:  Can we have a tax-based system with a directly managed provider network shift to a purchaser-provider-contracting model?

Under this scenario purchaser organizations contract with providers rather than manage them directly.  This can be done by adopting the SHI purchaser-provider split model where purchaser organizations contract with providers, including those which are not public providers.  This could lead to lower expenditures and better health outcomes.  However, to what extent this can be done without risking coherence and integration in its public health programs? The Egypt experience in introducing the Family Health Funds, governorate health insurance organizations that were established to do the purchasing function, is an example of an attempt in that regard. The ownership of these organizations between the Ministry of Health and the Health Insurance Organization remained for a long time and it failed to elaborate a national organization that would provide oversight for such decentralized bodies called the National Family Health Fund.  Further, this was countered by the Ministry of Health by establishing provider organizations at district level called the District Provider Organizations to ensure the flow of funds through its organization, which were dismantled later as the Egyptian health system geared more towards social health insurance..

Or Question 2: Can SHI system increase its reliance on tax revenues and capture some of the tax-based finance system functions?

This seems to be feasible to be done and the latest versions of the new social health insurance law provides different articles that attempt to increase its tax base and revenues from sources other than that from payroll taxes, although earmarked taxes is being proposed. This is the new experience that has been facing long debate before and after the January 25^th revolution, and seems to continue for a while. The linkage of health insurance to family health services could be the basis for protecting the screening functions of public health programs.

At the end, a decision will need to be made by those who will represent Egypt in the new People’s Assembly and will then need to be implemented by the newly elected government in a few months to come.  This decision will need to select the system, SHI systems or tax-financed systems, which on balance would spend less, achieve better health, easier to go through the transition, and lead to better labor market outcomes.  

Until we meet again...

A Framework for Reading Egypt’s Social Health Insurance Law

Egypt's Road towards Social Health Insurance - The Road to be Traveled (6)

This blog is based on the work of international experts in the field of social health insurance that was adapted to Egypt's situation. Arabic versions of this blog will dig into more details of the framework but might not follow the same sequence of this blog. Because of limitations of space, some ideas presented in this blog will be discussed separately in future blogs.

The recent news about the upcoming law for social health insurance in Egypt and the messages transmitted about its potential modifications to ensure its achievement of social justice raised the question about how to read such laws and what should be included in it.  To help read this kind of social laws, once officially published for public dialogue, the presence of a reference framework could assist in that regard. In this blog, we will try to contribute some inputs that may assist in the preparation of such a framework, which we do not claim it will be comprehensive. This blog will not attempt to review or criticize the content of the currently circulated versions of SHI law.  As well, this blog will not differentiate between what should be mentioned as articles of the law itself or articles of its executive regulations due to their complementarily nature.

The logic of a social health insurance law would probably include the following:

• Definition of the social health insurance system
• How to make effective the mandatory and universal features of the system
•  Principles that the govern the system
• Transition from the current situation to an integrated and unified system
• Definition of terms
• Who are the Beneficiaries
• What to finance
• How to finance the new system
• Definition and main characteristics of the institution that will manage the system, including governance, functions, powers, financial management, and accountability
• Purchasing health care goods and services
• Consumer protection
• Role of Voluntary health insurance

The Definition. In defining the social health insurance system three aspects are to be considered:

1.  The nature of the social health insurance system
2. The objective of the social health insurance system
3. The institutional structure to implement the social health insurance system.

Also three main characteristics of the system would need to be taken into account:

1. Universal, meaning that it includes all Egyptian citizens
2. Mandatory, that is, all Egyptian citizens must participate (there is no opting out from paying into the system); 
3. Gradual, full inclusion of all citizens (with few exemptions) into the system over a defined period of time, OR Abrupt

The Principles. These usually refer to: solidarity; unit of subscription (family or individual); basis on need or demand; scope of services (primary, secondary, tertiary); subscription basis (mandatory?), financing not provision and separation of financing from provision; role of private for profit and non-profit in service provision based on contracting; role of state in financing the poor and near poor (partially or fully); tax exemptions for subscriptions; role of private health insurance (duplicative, complementary, supplementary)

The Transition. A a transition plan from a presently fragmented institutional structure dominated by the HIO to a single institutional structure in the future will be required.  Details for this transition could take place and developed in regulatory decrees.  An article in the law might state the principles for transition.  The transition would describe the way forward to arrive over time at an “integrated” (meaning putting in one place a social health insurance system. Four issues related to transition would need to be noted:

1. The responsibility of management of the system during transition
2. The management of enrollment of all non-covered citizens;
3. The management of those already covered by the existing HIO system and their enrollment into the new SHI if required, under a one “unified” system (in that case meaning the system managed by a single organization);  
4. The relationship to other existing parallel health care financing systems such as the Program for Treatment on the Expense of State (PTES)  and those funds flowing for public health services provision for curative care in Egypt.

The Institution. Social health insurance systems can only be implemented through an institutional structure.  A future entity might be established, which could be (a) a re-structured HIO, or (b) a totally new entity transformed into the unified entity for the management of the integrated social health insurance system with its own legal autonomous status. The law and/or its regulations will need to define the aspects that will be mandated for the future organization such as governance, autonomy, structure, functions, powers or attributes, contracting, and regional offices.

What to Finance. The law will need to refer to a unified set of social health insurance benefits, the health care goods and services covered by social health insurance for health care. The set of benefits usually is to be determined and updated by regulatory decrees to be provided by participating providers and for secondary care on referral of the gatekeeper.  The law also should require that the set of benefits is to be determined on an actuarial analysis to project financial implications.  Finally, there is a need to entrust the decision-making on defining and updating the set of benefits into the social health insurance entity to preclude political influence that could disturb the goal of fiscal responsibility

How to Finance. Financing would better be presented in the form of groups to be covered classifying those into three sectors (formal; informal; and targeted subsidized). The figures for financing, preferably and if the constitution allows, should not be included in the law itself as they would be subject for future change; however, this might be difficult in Egypt. To mitigate that articles will need to indicate that it will reviewed on periodic basis based on actuarial studies conducted by the Government. This applies to contributions and subsidies, as well as for co-payment levels

Providers and Suppliers - Contracting. Articles should stipulate that the social health insurance entity is a financial institution that funds the provision of health care goods and services to public and private providers.  Selection of providers and suppliers should be stated for those who meet the requirements for contracting with the entity to ensure that providers and suppliers meet licensing and certification requirements, among others, and for improving quality of care.

Consumer Protection. Articles that protect the interest of consumers will need to be included that reflects a framework for a system of consumer protection that could be part of the regulations. 

Voluntary Health Insurance. If the policy is to have a private/public mix in health care financing and delivery, then articles that allow individuals to purchase voluntary health insurance will need to be included.  These services could be duplicative, supplemental or complementary, but only after certified satisfaction of payment of social health insurance contributions

Until we meet again....