ReviewHealth policy and planning2023
Procedural fairness in decision-making for financing a National Health Insurance Scheme: a case study from The Gambia.
Review in Health policy and planning, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Procedural fairness in health financing for universal health coverage: why, what and how.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices, and fair processes are critical for building legitimacy and trust. In 2021, The Gambia passed its National Health Insurance (NHI) Act. We explored decision-making processes shaping the financing of the NHI scheme (NHIS) with respect to procedural fairness criteria. We reviewed policy and strategic documents on The Gambia's UHC reforms to identify key policy choices and interviewed policymakers, technocrats, lawmakers, hospital chief executive officers, private sector representatives and civil society organizations (CSOs) including key CSOs left out of the NHIS discussions. Ministerial budget discussions and virtual proceedings of the National Assembly's debate on the NHI Bill were observed. To enhance public scrutiny, Gambians were encouraged to submit views to the National Assembly's committee; however, the procedures for doing so were unclear, and it was not possible to ascertain how these inputs were used. Despite available funds to undertake countrywide public engagement, the public consultations were mostly limited to government institutions, few trade unions and a handful of urban-based CSOs. While this represented an improved approach to public policy-making, several CSOs representing key constituents and advocating for the expansion of exemption criteria for insurance premiums to include more vulnerable groups felt excluded from the process. Overload of the National Assembly's legislative schedule and lack of National Assembly committee quorum were cited as reasons for not engaging in countrywide consultations. In conclusion, although there was an intent from the Executive and National Assembly to ensure transparent, participatory and inclusive decision-making, the process fell short in these aspects. These observations should be seen in the context of The Gambia's ongoing democratic transition where institutions for procedural fairness are expected to progressively improve. Learning from this experience to enhance the procedural fairness of decision-making can promote inclusiveness, ownership and sustainability of the NHIS in The Gambia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.