Strategies for sustainability and equity of prepayment health schemes\nin Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the long existence of community health insurance\nschemes (CHI) in Uganda, their numbers and coverage levels have\nremained small with limited accessibility by the poor.\tObjectives: To\nexamine issues of equity and sustainability in CHI schemes, which are\nprerequisites to health sector financing. Methods: We carried out a\ndescriptive cross-sectional study employing qualitative techniques.\nEight focus group discussions (FGDs) with CHI scheme members and seven\nFGDs with non-members were held. Twelve Key informant interviews (KIs)\nwere held with scheme managers, officials from Ministry of Health and\none health financing organisation. We reviewed relevant documents and\nrecords of schemes. Results: Respondents' perceptions of unfairness\nin schemes were: non-members were treated better in hospital than\nmembers; some members pay premiums continuously without falling sick\nand schemes refused to cover illnesses like diabetes and hypertension.\nFairness was related with the very little payment for the services\nreceived, members paying less than non-members but both getting the\nsame treatment and no patient discrimination based on gender, age or\nsocial status. Schemes are not sustainable because they operate on\nsmall budgets, have low enrolment and lack government support. Effect\nof abolition of user fees on scheme enrolment was minimal.. Conclusion\n Government should ensure that quality of health care does not\ndeteriorate in the context of increased utilisation after user fees\nremoval, schemes need substantial support to build their sustainability\nand there is need for technical and policy considerations about whether\nor not CHI has a role to play in Ugandan health system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".