Financial protection of patients through compensation of providers: the impact of Health Equity Funds in Cambodia

Public providers have no financial incentive to respect their legal obligation to exempt the poor from user fees. Health Equity Funds (HEFs) aim to make exemptions effective by giving NGOs responsibility for assessing eligibility and compensating providers for lost revenue. We use the geographic spread of HEFs over time in Cambodia to identify their impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) payments. Among households with some OOP payment, HEFs reduce the amount paid by 35%, on average. The effect is larger for households that are poorer and mainly use public health care. Reimbursement of providers through a government operated scheme also reduces household OOP payments but the effect is not as well targeted on the poor. Both compensation models raise household non-medical consumption but have no impact on health-related debt. HEFs reduce the probability of primarily seeking care in the private sector.

Financial protection of patients through compensation of providers: the impact of health equity funds in Cambodia

Public providers have no financial incentive to respect their legal obligation to exempt the poor from user fees. Health Equity Funds (HEFs) aim to make exemptions effective by giving NGOs responsibility for assessing eligibility and compensating providers for lost revenue. We use the geographic spread of HEFs in Cambodia to identify their impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) payments. Among households with some OOP payment, HEFs reduce the amount by 29%, on average. The effect is larger for households that are poorer, mainly use public health care and live closer to a district hospital. HEFs are more effective in reducing OOP payments when they are operated by a NGO, rather than the government, and when they operate in conjunction with the contracting of public health services. HEFs reduce households' health-related debt by around 25%, on average. There is no significant impact on non-medical consumption and health care utilisation

Analytical Strategies for Doping Control Purposes: Needs, Challenges, and Perspectives.

The fight against doping in sports has been governed since 1999 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), an independent institution behind the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). The intent of the Code is to protect clean athletes through the harmonization of anti-doping programs at the international level with special attention to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping.1 A new version of the Code came into force on January 1st 2015, introducing, among other improvements, longer periods of sanctioning for athletes (up to four years) and measures to strengthen the role of anti-doping investigations and intelligence. To ensure optimal harmonization, five International Standards covering different technical aspects of the Code are also currently in force: the List of Prohibited Substances and Methods (List), Testing and Investigations, Laboratories, Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) and Protection of Privacy and Personal Information. Adherence to these standards is mandatory for all anti-doping stakeholders to be compliant with the Code. Among these documents, the eighth version of International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), which also came into effect on January 1st 2015, includes regulations for WADA and ISO/IEC 17025 accreditations and their application for urine and blood sample analysis by anti-doping laboratories.2 Specific requirements are also described in several Technical Documents or Guidelines in which various topics are highlighted such as the identification criteria for gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chromatography (LC) coupled to mass spectrometry (MS) techniques (IDCR), measurements and reporting of endogenous androgenic anabolic agents (EAAS) and analytical requirements for the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP).