Benchmarking of performance of Mexican states with effective coverage

Benchmarking of the performance of states, provinces, or districts in a decentralised health system is important for fostering of accountability, monitoring of progress, identification of determinants of success and failure, and creation of a culture of evidence. The Mexican Ministry of Health has, since 2001, used a benchmarking approach based on the World Health Organization (WHO) concept of effective coverage of an intervention, which is defined as the proportion of potential health gain that could be delivered by the health system to that which is actually delivered. Using data collection systems, including state representative examination surveys, vital registration, and hospital discharge registries, we have monitored the delivery of 14 interventions for 2005-06. Overall effective coverage ranges from 54.0% in Chiapas, a poor state, to 65.1% in the Federal District. Effective coverage for maternal and child health interventions is substantially higher than that for interventions that target other health problems. Effective coverage for the lowest wealth quintile is 52% compared with 61% for the highest quintile. Effective coverage is closely related to public-health spending per head across states; this relation is stronger for interventions that are not related to maternal and child health than those for maternal and child health. Considerable variation also exists in effective coverage at similar amounts of spending. We discuss the implications of these issues for the further development of the Mexican health-information system. Benchmarking of performance by measuring effective coverage encourages decision-makers to focus on quality service provision, not only service availability. The effective coverage calculation is an important device for health-system stewardship. In adopting this approach, other countries should select interventions to be measured on the basis of the criteria of affordability, effect on population health, effect on health inequalities, and capacity to measure the effects of the intervention. The national institutions undertaking this benchmarking must have the mandate, skills, resources, and independence to succeed.

A paralysis in public health policy: water fluoridation in Queensland (1996-2006)

By focusing on developments between 1996 and 2006, this paper explains the reasons for one of Australia’s public health inconsistencies, the comparatively low adoption of adjusted water fluoridation in Queensland. As such, this work involved literature review and traditional historical method. In Queensland, parliamentary support for water fluoridation is conditional on community approval. Political ambivalence and the constraints of the “Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act (1963)” Qld have hindered the advocacy of water fluoridation. The political circumstance surrounding the “Lord Mayor’s Taskforce on Fluoridation Report” (1997) influenced its findings and confirms that Australia’s biggest local authority, the Brisbane City Council, failed to authoritatively analyse water fluoridation. In 2004, a private member’s bill to mandate fluoridation failed in a spectacular fashion. In 2005, an official systems review of Queensland Health recommended public debate about water fluoridation. Our principal conclusion is that without mandatory legislation, widespread implementationof water fluoridation in Queensland is most unlikely.