Horizon / Plein textes La base de ressources documentaires de l'IRD

IRD

 

Publications des scientifiques de l'IRD

Paul E., Brown G. W., Ensor T., Ooms G., van de Pas R., Ridde Valéry. (2020). We shouldn't count chickens before they hatch : results-based financing and the challenges of cost-effectiveness analysis. Critical Public Health, [Early access], [6 p.]. ISSN 0958-1596

Accès réservé (Intranet IRD) Demander le PDF

Lien direct chez l'éditeur doi:10.1080/09581596.2019.1707774

Titre
We shouldn't count chickens before they hatch : results-based financing and the challenges of cost-effectiveness analysis
Année de publication2020
Type de documentArticle référencé dans le Web of Science WOS:000505645200001
AuteursPaul E., Brown G. W., Ensor T., Ooms G., van de Pas R., Ridde Valéry.
SourceCritical Public Health, 2020, [Early access], p. [6 p.]. p. [6 p.] ISSN 0958-1596
RésuméResults-based financing (RBF) is subject to fierce debate and the evidence-base on its cost effectiveness is scarce. To our knowledge, only one cost-effectiveness study of RBF in a lower-middle income country has been published in a peer reviewed journal. That study - in Zambia - concludes that RBF is cost-effective, which was then uncritically repeated in an editorial accompanying its release. Here we would like to warn against readily accepting the conclusion of the cost-effectiveness study of RBF in Zambia, because its conclusions are not straightforward and could be dangerously misleading, especially for those readers unfamiliar with health economics. After outlining the results from the Zambia's RBF cost-effectiveness study, we point to important methodological issues related to cost-effectiveness analysis, showing how key assumptions produce particular results. We then reflect on how cost-effectiveness is different from efficiency and affordability - which is important, since cost-effectiveness studies often have considerable influence on national health financing strategies and policy priorities. Finally, we provide an alternative reading of the evidence on RBF in Zambia. Namely, when examined from an efficiency point of view, the study actually demonstrates that RBF is less efficient than the simpler alternative of providing more resources to health facilities, unconditioned on performance, which will be of most interest to a government with tight budget constraints. As a result, existing claims that RBF is cost-effective are overstated, requiring further and more nuanced examination with more adequate research methods.
Plan de classementSanté : aspects socioculturels, économiques et politiques [056]
Descr. géo.ZAMBIE
LocalisationFonds IRD [F B010077484]
Identifiant IRDfdi:010077484
Lien permanenthttp://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010077484

Export des données

Disponibilité des documents

Télechargment fichier PDF téléchargeable

Lien sur le Web lien chez l'éditeur

Accès réservé en accès réservé

HAL en libre accès sur HAL


Accès aux documents originaux :

Le FDI est labellisé CollEx

Accès direct

Bureau du chercheur

Site de la documentation

Espace intranet IST (accès réservé)

Suivi des publications IRD (accès réservé)

Mentions légales

Services Horizon

Poser une question

Consulter l'aide en ligne

Déposer une publication (accès réservé)

S'abonner au flux RSS

Voir les tableaux chronologiques et thématiques

Centres de documentation

Bondy

Montpellier (centre IRD)

Montpellier (MSE)

Cayenne

Nouméa

Papeete

Abidjan

Dakar

Niamey

Ouagadougou

Tunis

La Paz

Quito