我国政府卫生投入效率研究

以我国18个省市的政府卫生投入作为决策单元,分别从经费投入、人员投入和资本投入3个方面选择投入指标,从医疗卫生机构的服务效率与服务数量两个方面选择产出指标,应用数据包络分析方法研究我国政府卫生投入效率,进而对我国政府卫生投入产出情况进行分析。结果表明,整体上我国政府卫生投入效率较高,但是有的省市实际投入较少,还有一些省市存在一定的资源浪费和资源配置不尽合理等情况,可以通过有针对性地增加政府卫生投入,优化资源配置,提高医疗卫生服务的质量等措施,提高我国的医疗卫生水平。     

我国区域卫生规划政策的实施效果评价

区域卫生规划作为我国卫生改革的重大政策,从理论研究到地区试点,再到全国的推广历经十几年,特别是在1999年以后,区域卫生规划在全国推广。但是,对于区域卫生规划的实施效果却没有系统的评价。利用卫生费用在不同卫生服务和不同层次医疗机构的流向、政府卫生经费在不同层次医疗机构的分配和大型医用设备控制政策的执行效果等指标,对区域卫生规划执行效果进行了初步评价。其结论是,区域卫生规划调整卫生资源配置和病人流向以及控制大型医用设备过快增长的目标没有实现。     

城市不同层级医院卫生资源流向分析研究

我国卫生资源的配置,由于各种原因形成了重城市、轻农村;重医疗、轻预防的流向。在城市中,卫生资源主要集中二、三级医院,担负社区医疗保健服务的一级医院,卫生资源相对短缺。随着经济体制的转轨,各级卫生机构经费的主要来源是各级地方政府,政府对卫生资源配置的宏观调控力度降低,从而使城市卫生资源流向高层级医院的趋势更为严重。尽管80年代末以来,狠抓基层卫生组织的建     

我国卫生资源配置效率的省际差异分析

目的：分析我国卫生资源的配置情况及效率,提出提高卫生资源配置效率的相关建议,为政府制定卫生经济政策提供相应的决策参考。方法从卫生资源投入与产出的角度,运用因子分析与聚类分析法测算2010年我国31个省市卫生资源配置效率。结果全国31个省市中,20个省市卫生资源配置总量低于全国平均水平,19个省市卫生资源配置效率低于全国平均水平,只有不到30％的省市综合得分优于全国平均水平。结论我国各省市卫生资源的配置总量与各地区经济发展情况基本一致,卫生资源配置效率整体情况堪忧,部分经济发展好、卫生资源配置较好的地区,其卫生资源配置效率反而越差。建议从顶层设计上完善区域卫生规划,对经济欠发达地区给予相应的政策倾斜,在政府调控的基础上适当加强市场调节。     

系统动力学建模在卫生资源配置研究中的应用

文章运用系统动力学建模方法,对医疗卫生服务系统卫生资源配置流向及效率进行因果关系分析,构建系统动力学流图,筛选模型变量,确立动力学方程,并对模型进行仿真模拟,为卫生资源配置研究在方法学探索上进行了有益尝试。     

2009-2010年湖南省卫生总费用核算结果及分析

运用筹资来源法和机构流向法,对湖南省2009-2010年卫生总费用进行核算,并对卫生总费用的筹资水平、结构及流向进行了分析。结果显示,湖南省卫生总费用中政府筹资水平较低,个人现金卫生支出比重较高;卫生资源配置中,医疗卫生资源内部及其与公共卫生资源之间的比例不尽合理。为此提出,政府应继续加大投入,并提高政府投入效率,优化卫生资源配置等。     

基于供给侧视角下我国区域卫生资源配置效率研究

[目的]在供给侧改革的背景下,对全国31个省份卫生资源配置情况进行科学评价,分析目前我国区域医疗卫生供给效率的情况,并对其影响因素进行讨论,提出提高卫生配置效率,完善医疗卫生供给侧改革的建议。[方法]利用三阶段DEA模型对我国2013-2016年31个省份医疗卫生配置效率进行研究,并分析影响卫生资源配置效率的社会、经济及人口等环境因素。[结果](1)调整后各地区综合效率值变化较大,说明环境因素对卫生资源配置效率有较大影响,主要受到地区GDP、地区人口数、城镇人口比例和抚养比等因素的影响。(2)剔除环境因素和随机因素的干扰之后,我国2013-2016年平均卫生资源配置效率分别为0. 545、0. 570、0. 574、0. 572。(3)我国区域间医疗卫生供给情况差距较大,其中东部地区效率值最高,西部地区次之,中部地区最低。[结论]目前我国整体卫生资源配置效率较低,政府应通过积极推行分级诊疗制度、增加技术与人才的投入,提高医疗卫生供给效率;应结合地区实际情况,充分考虑环境因素的影响,合理规划卫生资源。     

基于Network DEA模型的省际卫生资源配置效率动态分析与评价

目的分析和评价新医改背景下我国省际卫生资源配置及利用情况,为进一步优化卫生资源配置结构提供依据。方法采用network DEA模型测度2010-2014年29省市卫生资源配置效率及其生产过程中各阶段效率的动态变化。结果 2010-2014年我国省际卫生资源配置效率总体呈下降趋势,各省市效率值有较大差异,其中五年均无效省份达72%,大部分地区医疗硬件产出效率逐年下降,医疗服务产出效率逐年上升。结论我国各省卫生资源配置效率仍处于较低水平,且省际间差距较大,各地政府应因地制宜,统筹规划,不断优化卫生资源配置结构来提高卫生资源配置效率。     

基于超效率DEA中国妇幼保健院效率分析与评价

目的分析评价我国妇幼保健院2006-2015年效率变化情况,以期发现我国妇幼保健院资源配置效率存在的问题,并寻找有效的资源配置措施和途径,为进一步优化卫生资源配置提供科学依据,从而推动卫生资源优化配置。方法采用超效率数据包络分析方法 (DEA)对2006-2015年我国妇幼保健院卫生资源技术效率、规模效率及纯技术效率进行分析评价。结果我国卫生资源配置技术效率值呈上升趋势,2006-2013年为DEA无效年份,规模报酬均递增,纯技术效率值高于规模效率值,规模效率均<1,DEA无效主要由规模无效造成,我国卫生资源投入未到达最优规模。2014、2015年为DEA有效年份,盲目增加投入导致规模报酬递减,资源浪费。结论我国妇幼保健院卫生资源配置效率正逐渐提高,应当继续优化配置卫生资源的规模与结构,做好政策规划,促进我国妇幼保健院资源配置效率的稳步提高。     

论卫生资源配置的市场机制与对策--兼谈卫生服务的公平与效率

人们都期望着卫生服务能够公平、合理,然而,现实的情况是卫生资源不断流向大城市、大医院,并导致了卫生服务实际的不公平。那么,这究竟是政策导向的失误,还是市场机制的作用,卫生资源配置和使用的效率又有什么样的联系,如何来解决卫生服务中公平与效率的关系,这正是本文所要探讨的问题。     

Has the Swap Influenced Aid Flows in the Health Sector?

The sector wide approach (SWAp) emerged during the 1990s as a mechanism for managing aid from the multiplicity of development partners that operate in the recipient country's health, education or agricultural sectors. Health SWAps aim to give increased control to recipient governments, allowing greater domestic influence over how health aid is allocated and facilitating allocative efficiency gains. This paper assesses whether health SWAps have increased recipient control of health aid via increased general sector‐support and have facilitated (re)allocations of health aid across disease areas. Using a uniquely compiled panel data set of countries receiving development assistance for health over the period 1990–2010, we employ fixed effects and dynamic panel models to assess the impact of introducing a health SWAp on levels of general sector‐support for health and allocations of health‐sector aid across key funding silos (including HIV, ‘maternal and child health’ and ‘sector‐support’). Our results suggest that health SWAps have influenced health‐sector aid flows in a manner consistent with increased recipient control and improvements in allocative efficiency. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Funding formulas for public health allocations: federal and state strategies

Public health funding formulas have received less scrutiny than those used in other government sectors, particularly health services and public health insurance. We surveyed states about their use of funding formulas for specific public health activities; sources of funding; formula attributes; formula development; and assessments of political and policy considerations. Results show that the use of funding formulas is positively correlated with the number of local health departments and with the percentage of public health funding provided by the federal government. States use a variety of allocative strategies but most commonly employ a "base-plus" distribution. Resulting distributions are more disproportionate than per capita or per-person-in-poverty allotments, an effect that increases as the proportion of total funding dedicated to equal minimum allotments increases.     

Drug discovery and beyond: the role of public-private partnerships in improving access to new malaria medicines

Traditional pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) strategy has failed to address the desperate need for new antimalarial drugs. The populations affected are too poor to attract commercially-driven R&D. Over the last few years, a new model, the public-private partnership for product development, has radically changed the antimalarial R&D landscape. The partnerships bring together academic and industry expertise with funding from governmental, philanthropic and charitable sources. The Medicines for Malaria Venture, a not-for-profit foundation based in Geneva, aims to develop new antimalarials for developing countries through public-private partnership. It is currently managing a portfolio of around 20 projects at various stages of development. However, as in all drug R&D, some of these projects will fail. The portfolio approach helps to maximize the chances of success, but there are obvious challenges, including financial and managerial ones. Proactive management of the two vital interfaces in the drug supply chain is important for success. Upstream, basic research must be aligned with translational research in order to ensure a continuous supply of leads into the development pipeline. Meanwhile, downstream, drug discovery and development must be aligned with access to ensure optimal health impact. All stages require partnership, sustainable financing and the engagement of disease-endemic countries. The recent G8 report on Africa has lent support to mechanisms aimed at improving health and achieving the Millenium Development Goals.     

Routine monitoring of performance: what makes health research and development different?

Increasing attention is being directed to measuring and monitoring the use of health-related R&D funding, partly to justify this expenditure and partly to ensure that R&D effort is directed to achieving the paybacks desired by funders. These paybacks include contributing to knowledge, contributing to R&D capacity, political benefits, benefits to the health service and to patients, and more general economic benefits. This paper addresses the issues that must be considered when designing a routine performance management system for health R&D. Conventional methods of routine performance management are often rendered inappropriate in this context by the intangible and unpredictable outcomes of research, which are heterogeneous across projects and programmes and which can be hard to attribute to particular R&D support. Instead, to be effective in this context, a routine system must combine quantitative and qualitative indicators, utilising information from a number of different sources. The system must achieve acceptable levels (defined by the funder) on each of the following criteria: it must measure those dimensions of payback that are valued by the funder; it must be decision-relevant; it must be consistent with truthful compliance; it must minimise perverse incentives; and it must have acceptable net costs. It is vitally important that the system itself generates a positive payback. We illustrate these issues by outlining a system that might be used to monitor the payback from government-funded R&D.     

Mapping global health research investments, time for new thinking - A Babel Fish for research data

ABSTRACT: Today we have an incomplete picture of how much the world is spending on health and disease-related research and development (R&D). As such it is difficult to align, or even begin to coordinate, health R&D investments with international public health priorities.Current efforts to track and map global health research investments are complex, resource-intensive, and caveat-laden. An ideal situation would be for all research funding to be classified using a set of common standards and definitions. However, the adoption of such a standard by everyone is not a realistic, pragmatic or even necessary goal.It is time for new thinking informed by the innovations in automated online translation - e.g. Yahoo's Babel Fish. We propose a feasibility study to develop a system that can translate and map the diverse research classification systems into a common standard, allowing the targeting of scarce research investments to where they are needed most.     

Public-private partnership: from there to here

Major changes in research and development (R&D) for drugs to treat tropical and neglected diseases have occurred in the past five years. Public-private partnerships for product development (PD PPPs) have emerged since rising drug development costs pushed pharmaceutical companies out of R&D for these diseases of the developing world and are now having an impact on the discovery and development of new medicines to treat them. PD PPPs can be an efficient model for bridging the translational research gap between basic research and clinical development by bringing together expertise from academia, the pharmaceutical industry and the public sector. Sustainability of funding is a serious problem. At present, one or two key philanthropic organisations provide a large proportion of the funding. Drug development typically takes 10 years and only 10 per cent of initial projects make it into the clinic. The partnerships need to widen their funding base and ensure that the funders understand the high level of attrition. Public-private partnerships have proved that they can move compounds quickly through the R&D pipeline. The challenge is to ensure that the products are delivered to the people who need them and to ensure that scientists in endemic countries are involved in the whole process.     

An analysis of financial flows from the Brazilian Ministry of Health for research and development in 2003-2005 according to the National Agenda for Health Research Priorities

This study mapped the application of financing in research and development in health (R&D/H) by the Brazilian Ministry of Health in 2003-2005, according to the National Agenda for Health Research Priorities, created in 2004. The analysis was based on data from a study aimed primarily at measuring these investment flows during the same period. The calculations included only direct financing with actual outlays in research, including payroll expenditures. The studies were categorized according to the 24 sub-agendas of the national priority agenda by two independent researchers, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Research and development expenditures in health totaled 409.7 million reais, concentrated mainly in the following sub-agendas: transmissible diseases, the health industry complex, clinical research, pharmaceutical care, and non-communicable diseases (79% of the total). All 24 sub-agendas received some financing during the period. The study established a baseline for subsequent evaluations of this financing instrument's inductive capacity and the relationship between R&D/H investments and the population's health needs.     

Exploring SWAp's contribution to the efficient allocation and use of resources in the health sector in Zambia

Zambia introduced a sector-wide approach (SWAp) in the health sector in 1993. The goal was to improve efficiency in the use of domestic funds and externally sourced development assistance by integrating these into a joint sectoral framework. Over a decade into its existence, however, the SWAp remains largely unevaluated. This study explores whether the envisaged improvements have been achieved by studying developments in administrative, technical and allocative efficiency in the Zambian health sector from 1990-2006. A case study was conducted using interviews and analysis of secondary data. Respondents represented a cross-section of stakeholders in the Zambian health sector. Secondary data from 1990-2006 were collected for six indicators related to administrative, technical and allocative efficiency. The results showed small improvements in administrative efficiency. Transaction costs still appeared to be high despite the introduction of the SWAp. Indicators for technical efficiency showed a drop in hospital bed utilization rates and government share of funding for drugs. As for allocative efficiency, budget execution did not improve with the SWAp, although there were large variations between both donors and year. Funding levels had apparently improved at district level but declined for hospitals. Finally, the SWAp had not succeeded in bringing all external assistance together under a common framework. Despite strong commitment to implement the SWAp in Zambia, the envisaged efficiency improvements do not seem to have been attained. Possible explanations could be that the SWAp has not been fully developed or that not all parties have completely embraced it. SWAp is not ruled out as a coordination model, but the current setup in Zambia has not proved to be fully effective.     

Shaping the future: a primary care research and development strategy for Scotland

Primary care is at the centre of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland; however, its R & D capacity is insufficiently developed. R&D is a potentially powerful way of improving the health and well-being of the population, and of securing high quality care for those who need it. In order to achieve this, any Scottish strategy for primary care R&D should aim to develop both a knowledge-based service and a research culture in primary care. In this way, decisions will be made based upon best available evidence, whatever the context. Building on existing practice and resources within primary care research, this strategy for achieving a thriving research culture in Scottish primary care has three key components: A Scottish School of Primary Care which will stimulate and co-ordinate a cohesive programme of research and training. A comprehensive system of funding for training and career development which will ensure access to a range of research training which will ensure that Scotland secures effective leadership for its primary care R&D. Designated research and development practices (DRDPs) which will build on the work of existing research practices, in the context of Local Health Care Co-operatives (LHCCs) and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), to create a co-operative environment in which a range of primary care professionals can work together to improve their personal and teams' research skills, and to support research development in their areas. A modest investment will create substantial increases in both the quality and quantity of research being undertaken in primary care. This investment should be targeted at both existing primary care professionals working in service settings in primary care, LHCCs and PCTs, and at centres of excellence (including University departments). A dual approach will foster collaboration and will allow existing centres of excellence both to undertake more primary care research and to support the development of service based primary care professionals in their research. Resources should be distributed equitably, taking into account demography, geography and the health needs of patients in Scotland. The strategy and its components must be seen as a whole. The Scottish School of Primary Care will stimulate and co-ordinate both research and training programmes. DRDPs will become research active and will participate in School-led training and research, and will contribute to research programmes. Comprehensive funding for training and career development will ensure that staff have the skills to participate in both DRDPs and in the School's activities. Thus, inadequate commitment to any one component of the strategy will mean that other components will be less successful. Commitment to all three components will maximise the chances of success.     

WHO's role in the global health system: what can be learned from global R&D debates?

Recent global debates on the research and development (R&D) of health technologies, such as drugs, diagnostics and vaccines, can be seen as a microcosm of discussions on the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the global health system more broadly. The global R&D system has come under heightened scrutiny with the publication of a 2012 report by the WHO Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development (CEWG), which made a number of recommendations to more equitably meet global health needs. The CEWG report followed a decade-long process of debate at the WHO on the weaknesses of the global R&D system, which include problems of affordability, limited research where market returns are small or uncertain (such as the ‘neglected diseases’ that predominantly affect the world's poorest), inefficient overlap of research efforts, and overuse of medicines such as antibiotics. The CEWG report called on WHO Member States to develop a global framework to improve monitoring, coordination and financing of R&D efforts through the establishment of a Global Health R&D Observatory and the negotiation of a binding treaty on R&D. While the treaty option has been put on the back-burner for several years, Member States nevertheless agreed at the 2013 World Health Assembly (WHA) on concrete steps towards a global framework. Progress at the 2013 WHA reaffirmed the central role of WHO as a convener, and the WHA's decision to create the Observatory within the WHO Secretariat underscored the organization's role as a source of strategic knowledge in the global health system. However, despite WHO's constitutional mandate as the ‘directing and coordinating authority on international health work’, in reality it faces major challenges in coordinating autonomous R&D actors such as states, firms and foundations in the global system. Strengthening its ability to do so requires, at a minimum, reforming its financing arrangements to provide it with a greater degree of independence from its largest donors. In addition, WHO may seem to be the natural arena for negotiating a binding R&D treaty, but negotiating new global agreements in other arenas such as the WTO, WIPO, or plurilateral fora offer the possibility of more enforceable and stronger public health norms. Nevertheless, no single arena in the existing system of global governance is perfectly suitable for the negotiation of progressive, inclusive, binding, enforceable, global health rules. While tradeoffs are inherent in the choice of any particular arena, leadership from either the multilateral institutions or influential governments can make a key difference in how beneficial any R&D treaty may be for health. In the coming years, global R&D debates will remain a critical issue to watch. The evolution of the global R&D system will be a harbinger not only of WHO's place in a rapidly-changing global health system, but also of our collective capacity to strengthen institutions of global governance for health.