Why Was the Policy Idea on the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel Gazetted in Kenya? A Retrospective Policy Analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rahab Mbau, Anna Vassall, Lucy Gilson, Edwine Barasa
{"title":"Why Was the Policy Idea on the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel Gazetted in Kenya? A Retrospective Policy Analysis.","authors":"Rahab Mbau, Anna Vassall, Lucy Gilson, Edwine Barasa","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.7608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2018, Kenya's Ministry of Health (MoH) gazetted the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel (HBPAP) to develop a benefits package for its universal health coverage (UHC) programme. In this study, we examine the political process that led to the gazettement of the HBPAP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a case study based on semi-structured interviews with 20 national-level participants and, reviews of documents such as organizational and media reports. We analyzed data from the interviews and documents thematically using the Braun and Clarke's six step approach. We identified codes and themes deductively using Kingdon's Multiple Streams Theory which postulates that the successful emergence of a policy follows coupling of three streams: the problem, policy, and politics streams.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the problem stream was characterized by fragmented and implicit healthcare priority-setting processes that led to unaffordable, unsustainable, and wasteful benefits packages. A potential policy solution for these problems was the creation of an independent expert panel that would use an explicit and evidence-based healthcare priority-setting process to develop an affordable and sustainable benefits package. The political stream was characterized by the re-election of the government and the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary for Health. Coupling of the problem, policy, and political streams occurred during a policy window that was created by the political prioritization of UHC by the newly re-elected government. Policy entrepreneurs who included health economists, health financing experts, health policy analysts, and health systems experts leveraged this policy window to push for the establishment of an independent expert panel as a solution for the issues identified in the problem stream. They employed strategies such as forming networks, framing, marshalling evidence, and utilizing political connections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Applying Kingdon's theory in this study was valuable in explaining why the HBPAP policy idea was gazetted. It demonstrated the crucial role of policy entrepreneurs and the strategies they employed to couple the three streams during a favourable policy window. This study contributes to the body of literature on healthcare priority-setting processes with an unusual analysis focused on a key procedural policy for such processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"13 ","pages":"7608"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11365168/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.7608","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In 2018, Kenya's Ministry of Health (MoH) gazetted the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel (HBPAP) to develop a benefits package for its universal health coverage (UHC) programme. In this study, we examine the political process that led to the gazettement of the HBPAP.

Methods: We conducted a case study based on semi-structured interviews with 20 national-level participants and, reviews of documents such as organizational and media reports. We analyzed data from the interviews and documents thematically using the Braun and Clarke's six step approach. We identified codes and themes deductively using Kingdon's Multiple Streams Theory which postulates that the successful emergence of a policy follows coupling of three streams: the problem, policy, and politics streams.

Results: We found that the problem stream was characterized by fragmented and implicit healthcare priority-setting processes that led to unaffordable, unsustainable, and wasteful benefits packages. A potential policy solution for these problems was the creation of an independent expert panel that would use an explicit and evidence-based healthcare priority-setting process to develop an affordable and sustainable benefits package. The political stream was characterized by the re-election of the government and the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary for Health. Coupling of the problem, policy, and political streams occurred during a policy window that was created by the political prioritization of UHC by the newly re-elected government. Policy entrepreneurs who included health economists, health financing experts, health policy analysts, and health systems experts leveraged this policy window to push for the establishment of an independent expert panel as a solution for the issues identified in the problem stream. They employed strategies such as forming networks, framing, marshalling evidence, and utilizing political connections.

Conclusion: Applying Kingdon's theory in this study was valuable in explaining why the HBPAP policy idea was gazetted. It demonstrated the crucial role of policy entrepreneurs and the strategies they employed to couple the three streams during a favourable policy window. This study contributes to the body of literature on healthcare priority-setting processes with an unusual analysis focused on a key procedural policy for such processes.

肯尼亚为何将健康福利一揽子计划顾问小组的政策理念刊登在公报上?回顾性政策分析》。
背景:2018 年,肯尼亚卫生部(MoH)在宪报上公布了医疗福利一揽子计划顾问小组(HBPAP),以制定全民医保(UHC)计划的福利一揽子计划。在本研究中,我们探讨了导致 HBPAP 刊宪的政治过程:我们对 20 名国家级参与者进行了半结构化访谈,并查阅了组织报告和媒体报道等文件,在此基础上开展了一项案例研究。我们采用布劳恩和克拉克的六步方法对访谈和文件中的数据进行了专题分析。该理论认为,一项政策的成功出台需要三个方面的配合:问题流、政策流和政治流:结果:我们发现,问题流的特点是医疗保健优先事项的制定过程分散且不明确,这导致了负担不起、不可持续和浪费的福利待遇。解决这些问题的一个潜在政策方案是成立一个独立的专家小组,利用明确的、以证据为基础的医疗保健优先级设定程序来制定可负担得起的、可持续的福利方案。政治流的特点是政府连任和任命新的内阁卫生部长。问题流、政策流和政治流的结合发生在一个政策窗口期,这个窗口期是由新连任的政府在政治上优先考虑全民医保所创造的。包括卫生经济学家、卫生筹资专家、卫生政策分析师和卫生系统专家在内的政策企业家们利用这一政策窗口,推动成立一个独立的专家小组,以解决在问题流中发现的问题。他们采用的策略包括建立网络、制定框架、收集证据和利用政治关系:在本研究中应用 Kingdon 的理论,对于解释为何将 HBPAP 政策理念刊登在公报上很有价值。它证明了政策制定者的关键作用,以及他们在有利的政策窗口期将三股力量结合起来的策略。本研究通过对医疗保健优先事项制定过程中的一项关键程序性政策进行不同寻常的分析,为有关医疗保健优先事项制定过程的大量文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信