Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ichd 2004 H Pol New Deal


Published on

Published in: Travel, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Ichd 2004 H Pol New Deal

  1. 1. New Deal in Cambodia by MSF-Cambodia Wim Van Damme Health Policy ICHD 2004
  2. 2. Overview of presentation <ul><li>Introduction: Health system in Cambodia </li></ul><ul><li>New Deal in Sotnikum (Thmar Pouck & Takéo): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Part 1: Background, rationale, objectives, set up & strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Part 2: Process & Results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Part 3: Some issues & lessons learnt </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul>
  3. 3. Introduction: 3 sectors in health system in Cambodia <ul><li>“ beautiful” national health service </li></ul><ul><ul><li>in full development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>utilisation very low; although “everything in place” (donor efforts+++) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>booming for-profit system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>many “clinics”, pharmacies, drug vendors, informal practises, &c everywhere </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>by all government staff & many more </li></ul></ul><ul><li>parallel NGO system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>charitable hospitals in Phnom Penh & Siem Reap </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NGO clinics, mainly reproductive health </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Reputation of health services <ul><li>public services: very low credibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>staff not available, often closed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>payment and service unpredictable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MPA in health centre: ‘unacceptable’ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>private for-profit services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>very responsive to patients’ demands </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>cheap or expensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>==> indebtedness, impoverishment (losing land) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>private non-profit : charitable hospitals & NGO clinics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>free (or cheap) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>good quality </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Health expenditure, 1998 100% $260M $26 4% $10M $1 Government 7% $20M $2 Private donors 14% $30M $3 Public donors 75% $200M $20 Out-of-pocket (%) total Per capita
  6. 6. Within this context <ul><li>Health Sector Reform (MOH & WHO) attempts to create a credible public service </li></ul><ul><li>Sotnikum New Deal = pilot project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(1) to create credible public service at district level; & </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(2) to boost health sector reform (provincial & national level) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. New Deal <ul><li>Part 1: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rationale </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Approach </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Set up </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Basis: general dissatisfaction with ‘Old Deal’ <ul><li>Patients: do not access government health services </li></ul><ul><li>Personnel: not happy to work </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not enough income </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not enough resources (only drugs  sufficient supply) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not properly trained </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>MOH: low utilization of government health services </li></ul><ul><li>Donors: low results of inputs </li></ul><ul><li>NGOs/IOs: frustrated with lack of improvement </li></ul>
  9. 9. Idea to start pilot experience <ul><li>Sotnikum, at start of New Deal, end 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>218,000 inhabitants </li></ul><ul><li>16 health centres reasonably functional (17 planned) </li></ul><ul><li>small hospital, being upgraded </li></ul><ul><li>no excess staff (30 in hospital, 14 in district office, 80 in health centres) </li></ul>
  10. 12. 90 / 110,000 District Hosp (80 beds) District office 4/11 Health centres Thmar Pouck 120 / 228,000 District Hosp (120 beds) District office 17 Health centres Sotnikum Staff / Population Facilities involved
  11. 13. Objectives of New Deal project(s) <ul><li>Improve access to quality health care in the public service for the population of Sotnikum </li></ul><ul><li>Build a sustainable district health system </li></ul><ul><li>Boost the Health Sector Reform process in Cambodia </li></ul>
  12. 14. Human resource management as an entry point in the system <ul><li>salaries very low: $10-12 per month </li></ul><ul><li>==> coping mechanisms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>unofficial fees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>taking medicines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>poaching patients for private practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>poor quality of care (staff working 1 or 2 hours a day) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>public system = “under-funded” (in 1999) </li></ul>
  13. 15. Approach: New Deal with staff <ul><li>Reasonable income, in exchange for better service to population </li></ul><ul><li>Strict adherence to internal regulation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Working hours (24-hour service) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No under-the-table payments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No diversion of resources, esp. drugs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No poaching of patients </li></ul></ul>
  14. 17. Clarify role of different entities in Operational District <ul><li>District office </li></ul><ul><li>1 referral hospital </li></ul><ul><li>17 health centres </li></ul><ul><li>Referral system </li></ul><ul><li>Equity fund (local NGO) </li></ul>
  15. 18. Funding of New Deal <ul><li>Increased patient fees </li></ul><ul><li>Increased & more reliable state budget </li></ul><ul><li>MSF/UNICEF: cash subsidy </li></ul><ul><li>All resources from vertical programmes & other NGOs </li></ul>
  16. 19. Basic approach <ul><li>Work within MOH system, with NGO support </li></ul><ul><li>Agreement to improve staff income to living wage </li></ul><ul><li>Agreement on using all resources available: </li></ul><ul><li>Govt budget + CMS drugs + patient fees + NGO cash (need for results for the population) </li></ul><ul><li>For limited period (2 to 4 years): need to work towards sustainability: financial, technical, managerial & socio-political. </li></ul><ul><li>Use curative care as entry point for financial sustainability </li></ul>
  17. 20. How? Basics: <ul><li>Involve everybody </li></ul><ul><li>NEGOTIATIONS – « Deal » - agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Takéo: one well-established provincial hospital at start: clear detailed agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Sotnikum/Thmar Pouck: complex district health system, many things unclear at start: open agreement to create dynamic, build-up, expand; strategies still to be defined </li></ul>
  18. 21. Main actors All staff involved Health facilities District team; district governor NGO District PHD & PHA (WHO/UNICEF) Prov governor & Prov treasury NGO Provincial MoH: DG Health & DG Admin/fin MoEF WHO / UNICEF NGO Central
  19. 22. Management principles <ul><li>Decentralisation & increased autonomy in decision-making </li></ul><ul><li>Financial transparency & accountability (consolidated bookkeeping) </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory management in management committees in health facilities </li></ul>
  20. 23. Management mechanisms <ul><li>Contracting </li></ul><ul><li>Performance-based incentives </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiations </li></ul>
  21. 24. Special financial mechanisms <ul><li>Bonus partly related to income from patient fees of health facility </li></ul><ul><li>Bonus for (justified) referral ($1.25) </li></ul><ul><li>5% of patient fees from hospital & Health centres to District Office for ‘quality support’ </li></ul><ul><li>Equity fund for poor people (only for hospital services) </li></ul>
  22. 25. Management: two levels <ul><li>Level A: management of health facilities : </li></ul><ul><li>increased autonomy & accountability in health facilities: co-operative-type of management within each health facility (elections, individual contracts & self-control, encourage staff to pursue collective self-interest...) </li></ul><ul><li>Level B: steering in district health system : </li></ul><ul><li>short term contracting between health facility and Steering Committee </li></ul>
  23. 26. Steering Committee: members <ul><li>MOH: district, province & national </li></ul><ul><li>MOEF: national & provincial </li></ul><ul><li>Local authority: prov governor’s office & district level </li></ul><ul><li>MSF, UNICEF, NIPH </li></ul><ul><li>Other interested parties as observers </li></ul>
  24. 27. P erformance - related pa y <ul><li>In hospitals : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bonus per category of staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on attendance (50-70%) + quality assessment (50-30%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vary with the income from user’s fees & NGO direct support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In district o ffices : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bonus per category of staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on attendance + some quality assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variable bonus : 5% user’s fees reimbursed from Health Centre & Referral Hospital </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In h ealth c enters : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fix bonus : Chief (40$), staff (30$) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variable bonus : (49% user’s fees doubled by MSF/Unicef + income from referrals) equally distributed among the staff </li></ul></ul>
  25. 28. Part 2: Process & results <ul><li>Public health </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User rates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of care </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Financial results </li></ul>
  26. 29. Key issues during negotiation <ul><li>How many people concerned? </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiate with a representative delegation </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitator for simulations: total cost; workload; fees & number of patients </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiation = talking business </li></ul><ul><li>External reference (need for approval) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Cultural’ issues </li></ul>
  27. 30. Progressive build-up of operational district
  28. 34. Sotnikum: Referrals from health centres to the hospital
  29. 35. Sotnikum hospital +65% C-sections +300% to +600% Technical exams (lab, X-ray, Ultrasound, &c) +21% Hospitalisations 2001 compared to 2000
  30. 36. Health centres <ul><li>Open 24 hours – 7 days </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>User rates  </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Deliveries  </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Referrals  </li></ul></ul></ul>
  31. 37. Perceived quality of care <ul><li>Patient satisfaction: increased, both at health centre level & in the hospital </li></ul><ul><li>According to staff: quality of care has increased </li></ul><ul><li>MSF/UNICEF: quality of care = problematic!! </li></ul>
  32. 39. Hospital costs <ul><li>Costing: $53 / admission </li></ul><ul><li>Running costs expenditures represent a high proportion of total costs (39%) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High potential for rationalization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investments made with budgets for operating costs </li></ul></ul>
  33. 40. Budget 2000 30%?? Government: cash 30% Govt: drugs (in kind) 20% MSF/UNICEF 20% Patients
  34. 41. Level of staff income <ul><li>Salary: $10-12 per month </li></ul><ul><li>Average monthly bonus per staff </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hospital staff: $70 ($96 at end of year) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health centre staff: $78 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>District office staff: $54 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But: working hours very different!! </li></ul>
  35. 42. Problems with financial management <ul><li>Still substitution for bookkeeping by MSF/UNICEF </li></ul><ul><li>Big difficulties with transition to new government financing system </li></ul><ul><li>Still no financial transparency </li></ul>
  36. 43. Results <ul><li>It (partly) works: </li></ul><ul><li>Patients react favourably </li></ul><ul><li>Health staff largely comply </li></ul><ul><li>Mid-level staff continue diversion of budget </li></ul><ul><li>But, despite this: enough budget arrived to make it work </li></ul>
  37. 44. P erception of New Deal by MOH staff <ul><li>Hospital & health centre staff are more satisfied than District Office staff (this is certainly linked to the bonus level), </li></ul><ul><li>Complaints are much more about management weaknesses than about bonus, </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of transparency, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of fairness, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Poor organization </li></ul></ul>
  38. 45. Part 3: Some questions – issues – lessons learnt … <ul><li>Income is never satisfactory </li></ul><ul><li>HIS = unreliable, as long as there are positive incentives for inflating data </li></ul><ul><li>Development = 2 steps forward; 1 step back </li></ul><ul><li>Resistance to change = strong </li></ul><ul><li>Management of change is difficult, especially in a cross-cultural environment </li></ul><ul><li>Expats come and go; Khmers stay </li></ul><ul><ul><li>different perceptions of change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>different time-perspectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>different attitudes to risk-taking, &c </li></ul></ul>
  39. 46. New Deal can work in a rural district in Cambodia <ul><li>Staff accept the New Deal, & respect internal regulation. User rates increase +++ </li></ul><ul><li>New incentive system is a one-step process; but, improved management and improved quality of care is a slower process (labour intensive) </li></ul><ul><li>Initial idea (once New Deal running, support will yield better results) has yet to be proven. All energy went into micro-management, not in training or quality improvements. </li></ul>
  40. 47. New Deal = labour intensive <ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>New Deal is </li></ul><ul><li>new way of public management; </li></ul><ul><li>a complex sociological process; & </li></ul><ul><li>occurs in an open environment (that is not necessarily conducive to such changes) </li></ul><ul><li>New Deal = profound change </li></ul>
  41. 48. The New Deal is attractive, for whom? <ul><li>Compared to the Old Deal, the New Deal introduces many changes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>income, work environment, workload, and possibility to earn other income (coping mechanisms & private practise) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>power relations, transparency & accountability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For some aspects: everybody can gain; for other aspects: there are winners & losers. </li></ul>
  42. 49. Balance (gains vs. losses)
  43. 50. Structural bottle-necks <ul><li>government funding: level of salaries & access to budget </li></ul><ul><li>human resources: distribution & qualification </li></ul><ul><li>general environment: “island of New Deal in an ocean of Old Deals” (lack of transparency & accountability) </li></ul>
  44. 51. Conditions for sustainability (1) <ul><li>Changes in human resource management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>re-distribution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>appoint people where needed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>important investment in capacity building; or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in decentralisation of qualified staff </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mid-level management?? </li></ul>
  45. 52. Conditions for sustainability (2) <ul><li>Access to budget </li></ul><ul><ul><li>total amount disbursed; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>correctly spread over the year; & </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>used for improving services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More flexibility in use of budget (to replace MSF/UNICEF subsidy to support the income of the health staff) </li></ul><ul><li>Improved transparency & accountability in use of budget </li></ul>
  46. 53. Strong interest from national level: why? <ul><li>“ New Deal = good solution” </li></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory: “everybody”  involved in Steering Committee  sense of ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Politically more acceptable than ADB project (=“privatisation”) </li></ul><ul><li>Change within MOH system </li></ul><ul><li>DG of Health: “New Deal pushes towards improved utilisation of government budget; no substitution of government budget” </li></ul>
  47. 54. But: problems with government budget… <ul><li>Government budget = unbalanced </li></ul><ul><li>(running costs >>> salaries) </li></ul><ul><li>Budget allocation = disincentive to good performance </li></ul><ul><li>(hardly linked to utilisation) </li></ul>
  48. 55. Issues pending … <ul><li>Use of contracting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From broad agreement towards detailed contract? (fine-tune?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Steering Committee = artificial body </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Better Deal” for mid-level managers?? </li></ul><ul><li>Quality of care & performance management </li></ul><ul><li>Role of MSF/UNICEF (pilot project) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Certain degree of substitution (NGO-isation of public service??) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to reach managerial sustainability? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(mid-level management = very weak) </li></ul></ul>
  49. 56. Limitations <ul><li>Qualitative issues: ‘kindness for patients’; ‘quality of care’; ‘commitment’, … </li></ul><ul><li>Issues that do not depend only on the people involved in the negotiation: transparent bookkeeping; access to government funding </li></ul><ul><li>Fair deal for managers? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsibility bonus? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prime de position? </li></ul></ul>
  50. 57. Lessons learned <ul><li>Performance-related incentives at all levels </li></ul><ul><li>New role for administration?? </li></ul><ul><li>Importance of internal transparency & accountability (‘fair’ management) </li></ul><ul><li>Need for build-in auditing / monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Need for equity fund </li></ul><ul><li>& Pilot equity funds managed by local NGOs work… </li></ul>
  51. 58. Lessons not learned (yet?) <ul><li>How to use government budget for staff incentives? </li></ul><ul><li>How to deal with over-staffing? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to reach critical treshold for income of staff!!! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How to attract more out-of-pocket expenditure to public service? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$2 per capita total expenditure in public service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$20 per capita in private… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Public system still very under-funded </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum need in district: $5 per capita - $10? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued need for donor input </li></ul></ul>