Post on 24-Feb-2016
description
1
Jhpiego’s collaboration with the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation - EGPAF
PBF initiative
Performance-based Finance (PBF) in Mozambique
Edgar Necochea, Director Health Systems DevelopmentJhpiego - an Affiliate of Johns Hopkins University
• Implemented by the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation with funding from CDC/PEPFAR (AIDS funds)
• Started in 2009 with cost reimbursement and PBF component in 2010
• Includes approximately 27 districts and 2 provincial directorates of health
2
The EGPAF PBF initiative in Mozambique
• Jhpiego has collaborated with EGPAF providing tools for the assessment of the quality component of the PBF initiative in Mozambique in two areas: infection prevention and control and maternal health
• Jhpiego is improving quality of care in these areas in the country using its Standards-based Management and Recognition (SBM-R) approach
3
SBM-R in Mozambique
• Infection Prevention and Control (IPC): implemented nationally in all hospitals of the country (45) and 82 health centers, with CDC support
• Model Maternities: implemented in 34 facilities planned expansion to 122 by 2014, with USAID support
• Others: Model wards, pre-service education• Adopted by the Mozambican MOH, key part of
the MOH national quality strategy4
Mozambican MOH Quality Strategy
1. Promote and guarantee the dissemination and adoption of evidence-based health practices and standardize healthcare processes with base on these practices:
a. Update service delivery norms and guidelines working with the professional and specialty associations.b. Continue and expand the implementation of the SBM-R approach currently used in IPC and Model Wards and Maternities.c. Promote the use of the WHO check-lists as job aids that reinforce the adoption of evidence-based practices in areas such as safe surgery and patient safety.
5
6
The SBM-R approach
7
• There is significant amount of evidence on what works in healthcare, but…
• Many countries are not implementing even the basic standards of care in their facilities
8
• 12 cities in the U.S., 6,712 patients• 439 performance standards for 30 acute and
chronic conditions and preventive care• Clinical records review plus phone interviews• Average: 54.9% recommended care (acute:
53.5%, chronic: 56.1%, preventive: 54.9%)• Range: between 78.8 (cataracts) and 10.5%
(alcohol dependency)• Gap between best care based on evidence and
average care
Rand Corporation study, 2003
9
The critical gap
Between:
What is known
What is done
10
The reality in many low resource settings
• Few health workers for service provision• Staff overburdened by workload• Poor working conditions, lack of resources• Low motivation of staff• Weak pre-service education, often staff lack
basic knowledge and skills• Dysfunctional management systems, including
patient records and information
11
What we were looking for
Less emphasis on problem analysis andmore focus on providing a solution that is:
• Practical• User-friendly• Informative• Challenging• Fun
12
Systematic reviews of the evidence (Scientific basis)
Guidelines(Synthesis of the evidence)
From evidence to action
Standards(Care maps, check-lists)
13
The Standards-Based Management and Recognition Approach
14
Area: Pregnancy Care
Perf. Standard Verification Criteria Y, N, NA Comments
1. The facility conducts a routine rapid assessment of pregnant women
Sample performance standard for EOC
Observe in the reception area or waiting room if the person who receives the pregnant woman:• Asks if she has or has had:- Vaginal bleeding- Headache or visual changes - Breathing difficulty- Severe abdominal pain- Fever
• Immediately notifies the health provider if any of these conditions are present
15
Area: Operating Room
Criteria Verification Means Y, N, N/A Comments
1. The cleaning equipment is processed before reuse or storage
Observe if the mops, buckets, brushes and cleaning cloths are:• Decontaminated by soaking for 10 minutes in 0.5% chlorine solution or other approved disinfectant.• Washed in detergent and water.• Rinsed in clean water.• Dried completely before reuse or storage.
Sample performance standard for IP
16
Sample summary form of assessment tool for MNH - hospital
AREAS STANDARDSCare for pregnancy-related complications 17Labor, delivery, immediate postpartum and newborn care
27
Support services (lab., blood bank, pharmacy) 28Infection prevention 11Information, education and community participation
15
Human, physical and material resources 27Management systems 14Total 139
17
Assessment tool areas for HIV/AIDS ART
AREAS STANDARDSART treatment readiness assessment (adults) 7ART treatment commencement (adults) 9ART treatment follow-up (adults) 24ART treatment readiness assessment (pediatric) 8ART treatment commencement (pediatric) 13ART treatment follow-up (pediatric) 24Laboratory 9Pharmacy 17Medical records and information systems 16IEC and community participation 7Human and physical resources 23Management systems 16Total 173
18
100%
0%
60%
Scientific (evaluation)
Managerial
Optimizing
Satisficing
Level of Certainty
19
Types and uses of measurement
METHOD STRENGTHS LIMITATIONS
Measurements using the Assessment Tool
Simple, data readily available Limited to process, level of certainty relatively low
Tracking of selected result indicators using routinely collected data
Data often available, relatively simple, gives information on results achieved
Data may not be complete, may take staff time for data collection and analysis, may require some training, results may not be completely accurate
Tracking of selected result indicators using specially collected data
Data is more reliable, gives more accurate information on results
Usually requires a system and training for data recording, collection, and analysis, requires more staff time and dedication
Tracking of selected result indicators using randomly selected case and control sites
Level of certainty of results of evaluation is high
Requires special and careful design, a data collection and analysis system and infrastructure, trained staff, more costly, requires more time
ACTION
EVIDENCE
20
Some results for the Model Maternitie
s
PROVINCE
HEALTH FACILITY
BASELINE(JANUARY - JUNE 2010)
FOLLOW-UP ASSESSMENT(SEPTEMBER - DECEMBER 2010)
STANDARDS ASSESSED
STANDARDS ATTAINED STANDARDS ASSESSED
STANDARDS ATTAINED
No. No. % No. No. %
Maputo City
Maputo Central Hospital73 11 15.1 76 34 44.7
José Macamo General Hospital77 19 24.7
Mavalane General Hospital65 5 7.7
Chamanculo General Hospital69 15 22.2 77 29 37.7
Maputo Province
Manhiça Health Center77 29 28.7
Matola II Health Center77 21 27.0
Boane Health Center77 35 49.5
Gaza
Xai Xai Provincial Hospital61 15 24.6 59 22 37.3
Manjacaze Rural Hospital77 32 41.6
Chicumbane Rural Hospital66 20 30.3
Inhambane
Inhambane Provincial Hospital44 8 18.2
Chicuque Rural Hospital39 6 15.4
Homoine Health Center77 29 37.7
Sofala
Beira Cental Hospital66 12 18.2 65 34 52.3
Buzi Rural Hospital 42 16 38.1
Macurrungo Health Center72 24 33.3 75 45 60.0
Manica
Chimoio Provincial Hospital60 19 31.7
1st of May Health Center79 14 17.7
Catandica Rural Hospital79 10 12.7
Tete
Tete Provincial Hospital65 16 24.6
Songo Rural Hospital74 22 29.7
Matundo Health Center76 27 35.5
Zambézia
Quelimane Provincial Hospital73 58 79.5 63 49 77.8
Mocuba Rural Hospital76 42 55.3 79 34 43.0
Gurué Rural Hospital
75 27 36.0 79 51 64.6
Nampula
Nampula Central Hospital*
62 18 29.0 63 33 52.4
Monapo Rural Hospital*
70 21 30.0 59 45 76.3
Nacala Porto General Hospital*
74 31 41.9 48 26 54.2
Niassa
Lichinga Provincial Hospital
62 22 35.5 65 27 41.5
Cuamba Rural Hospital
62 24 38.7 62 23 37.1
Chihualua Health Center
57 11 19.3 48 9 18.8
Cabo Delgado
Pemba Provincial Hospital
56 13 23.2 79 47 59.5
Montepuez Rural Hospital
73 18 24.7 66 21 31.8
Natite Health Center
72 10 13.9 79 53 67.1
* initial evaluation redone, June 2010
21
Some results for the Model Maternities
22
Some results for the Model Maternities
23
Some results for the Model Maternities
24
Motivation
• Empowerment• Challenge• Growth• Achievement• Healthy competition• Fun
25
Recognition as an incentive
• Feedback• Social recognition• Material recognition
26
The EGPAF PBF initiative
Components
• Cost-reimbursement (input-based): provider receives funds based on budget line items, submits justifications to EGPAF (without receipts, no payment); approximately 60% of budget
• Performance-based (output-based): provider is paid for services delivered (without service, no payment); approximately 40% of budget
27
Functions and entities
• Regulator/Provincial health directorate: monitors quantity and quality of services, establishes procedures for usage of PBF funds
• Purchaser/EGPAF: verifies and pays• Provider/Health facility & District health
department: provides services• Consumer/civil society: utilizes services, controls
results, and measures client satisfaction
28
Quantity indicators
• HIV indicators (50%): PMTCT (4), Pediatric HIV (5), Care and treatment program (6)
• Non-HIV indicators (50%): MCH program/TB/Primary health (6)
29
PBF model
EGPAF –Mozambique PBF model is similar to the Rwanda model based on price for service
• HIV indicators taken from PEPFAR indicators, with comparatively robust M&E system.
• Additional components are the quality tools (IMQ, MM and PCI) approved by MOH.
• Equity bonus (for remote districts)• Patient satisfaction bonus (based on independent patient
satisfaction survey)
30
Equity and quality indicators
• Equity factor: 0.20 or 0.25• HIV Quality Index (QI): 0.25• Infection Prevention and Control QI: 0.125• Model Maternity QI: 0.125• Client Satisfaction Index: 0.05
These are percentages of the total amount for quantity (quality represents 75% of the amount for quantity.)
31
Reporting and verification
• Quarterly and semi-annual reports from beneficiaries
• Verification: Quality tools: quarterly for HIV(IMQ); Infection Prevention and Control and Model maternities: semi-annual
• When targets are met for a particular quantity indicator, it will receive a 4% bonus (of the total amount for the specific indicator)
32
Community verification
• Independent verification of quantity service data reported by the health facility
• Independent assessment of client satisfaction
33
Equity factor
• For districts that face greater obstacles in service delivery (lack of investment, resources, or other constraints)
• Amount to 20 or 25% of the total amount for quantity x Price(Basis for payment)
34
Use of funds
• A minimum of 60% of funds should be used for health staff incentives
• A maximum of 40% for other activities like reinvestment in the HF.
35