Objective: Out of pocket expenditure is the primary means of financing healthcare in middle and low-income countries. The 2021 government health expenditure in Nigeria at 4.52% falls short of the 15% recommendation of...Objective: Out of pocket expenditure is the primary means of financing healthcare in middle and low-income countries. The 2021 government health expenditure in Nigeria at 4.52% falls short of the 15% recommendation of the 2001 Abuja Declaration. This paper examines healthcare purchasing in Nigeria, in order to explore how resources were allocated and create better insight into healthcare purchasing for universal health coverage. Data Source/Study Setting: The study was conducted in the Federal Capital Territory and three states—Lagos, Enugu and Sokoto. Study Design: A cross sectional method was used to examine health purchasing functions in Nigeria. Key informant interviews and review of grey and published literature on health financing in the selected study areas. Data Collection Methods: Primary data were collected from relevant stakeholders across the selected study areas, using a structured interview guide. A search of grey and published literature gave a total of 57 references. Principal Findings: The NHIS has a clearly articulated benefit package, for its formal sector and pro-poor BHCPF program. NHIS covers only about 5% of the Nigerian population. BHCPF (SOML) program targets the bottom 40% of Nigerians on paper, but there is no specific design for reaching them. The NHIS uses both public and private sector providers. It is not clear which providers are used for the BHCPF (SOML) program. The NHIS uses actuarially calculated capitations for primary care services and market-based fee-for-service rates for reimbursing secondary and tertiary care. BHCPF (SOML) uses a macroscale pay-for-performance mechanism to reward states achieving specific health outcomes. Conclusion: Health purchasing functions have serious implication for UHC. However, health care provision in Nigeria is not pro-poor and government efforts do not promote efficiency. Available option is prioritization of health initiatives that ensure value for money through performance-based financing and partnering with the private sector.展开更多
文摘Objective: Out of pocket expenditure is the primary means of financing healthcare in middle and low-income countries. The 2021 government health expenditure in Nigeria at 4.52% falls short of the 15% recommendation of the 2001 Abuja Declaration. This paper examines healthcare purchasing in Nigeria, in order to explore how resources were allocated and create better insight into healthcare purchasing for universal health coverage. Data Source/Study Setting: The study was conducted in the Federal Capital Territory and three states—Lagos, Enugu and Sokoto. Study Design: A cross sectional method was used to examine health purchasing functions in Nigeria. Key informant interviews and review of grey and published literature on health financing in the selected study areas. Data Collection Methods: Primary data were collected from relevant stakeholders across the selected study areas, using a structured interview guide. A search of grey and published literature gave a total of 57 references. Principal Findings: The NHIS has a clearly articulated benefit package, for its formal sector and pro-poor BHCPF program. NHIS covers only about 5% of the Nigerian population. BHCPF (SOML) program targets the bottom 40% of Nigerians on paper, but there is no specific design for reaching them. The NHIS uses both public and private sector providers. It is not clear which providers are used for the BHCPF (SOML) program. The NHIS uses actuarially calculated capitations for primary care services and market-based fee-for-service rates for reimbursing secondary and tertiary care. BHCPF (SOML) uses a macroscale pay-for-performance mechanism to reward states achieving specific health outcomes. Conclusion: Health purchasing functions have serious implication for UHC. However, health care provision in Nigeria is not pro-poor and government efforts do not promote efficiency. Available option is prioritization of health initiatives that ensure value for money through performance-based financing and partnering with the private sector.
