ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Reconfiguring health purchasing for universal health coverage: insights from Nepal with relevance to low- and middle-income countries.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Nepal's transition to federalism and the rollout of the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) marked critical steps toward universal health coverage. Yet, structural misalignments between health financing policies and purchasing practices persist, weakening the effectiveness of these reforms. Strategic purchasing-a key lever in health financing-has the potential to improve system efficiency, equity, and responsiveness by actively allocating pooled funds based on population needs, provider performance, and service value. However, in Nepal, legacy practices such as line-item budgeting, fragmented programmatic funding, and overlapping institutional roles hinder the adoption of this approach. The Ministry of Health and Population continues to play simultaneous roles as policymaker, purchaser, and provider, weakening accountability and the purchaser's autonomy. Public providers are funded through both historical budgets and reimbursement schemes, diluting incentives for performance. Moreover, NHIP's purchasing decisions are not guided by health technology assessments or cost-effectiveness analysis, raising concerns about the allocative efficiency of the benefit package. This Perspective argues that Nepal's health financing reforms require institutional realignment, clearer role demarcation, and stronger contractual mechanisms to support strategic purchasing. Drawing on both national experience and international frameworks, it highlights the systemic disconnects and offers a way forward for embedding strategic purchasing into Nepal's health financing architecture. By correcting these foundational misalignments, Nepal can better leverage public resources to deliver high-quality, equitable care, advancing the goals of federalism and universal health coverage simultaneously.
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.