RESUMO

Maintained dedication to primary care has fostered a public health delivery system with exceptional outcomes in Costa Rica. For more than a decade, management commitments have been part of Costa Rican health reform. We assessed the effect of the Costa Rican management commitments on access and quality of care and on compliance with their intended objectives. We constructed seven hypotheses on opinions of primary care providers. Through a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach, we tested these hypotheses and interpreted the research findings. Management commitments consume an excessive proportion of consultation time, inflate recordkeeping, reduce comprehensiveness in primary care consultations, and induce a disproportionate consumption of hospital emergency services. Their formulation relies on norms in need of optimization, their control on unreliable sources. They also affect professionalism. In Costa Rica, management commitments negatively affect access and quality of care and pose a threat to the public service delivery system. The failures of this pay-for-performance-like initiative in an otherwise well-performing health system cast doubts on the appropriateness of pay-for-performance for health systems strengthening in less advanced environments.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Costa Rica is a middle-income country with a strong governmental emphasis on human development. For more than half a century, its health policies have applied the principles of equity and solidarity to strengthen access to care through public services and universal social health insurance. Costa Rica's population measures of health service coverage, health service use, and health status are excellent, and in the Americas, life expectancy in Costa Rica is second only to that in Canada. Many of these outcomes can be linked to the performance of the public health care system. However, the current emphasis of international aid organizations on privatization of health services threatens the accomplishments and universality of the Costa Rican health care system.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Integrating disease control with health care delivery increases the prospects for successful disease control. This paper examines whether current international aid policy tends to allocate disease control and curative care to different sectors, preventing such integration. Typically, disease control has been conceptualized in vertical programs. This changed with the Alma Ata vision of comprehensive care, but was soon encouraged again by the Selective Primary Health Care concept. Documents are analyzed from the most influential actors in the field, e.g. World Health Organization, World Bank, and European Union. These agencies do indeed have a doctrine on international aid policy: to allocate disease control to the public sector and curative health care to the private sector, wherever possible. We examine whether there is evidence to support such a doctrine. Arguments justifying integration are discussed, as well as those that critically analyze the consequences of non-integration. Answers are sought to the crucial question of why important stakeholders continue to insist on separating disease control from curative care. We finally make a recommendation for all international actors to address health care and disease control together, from a systems perspective.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Integrating disease control with health care delivery increases the prospects for successful disease control. This paper examines whether current international aid policy tends to allocate disease control and curative care to different sectors, preventing such integration. Typically, disease control has been conceptualized in vertical programs. This changed with the Alma Ata vision of comprehensive care, but was soon encouraged again by the Selective Primary Health Care concept. Documents are analyzed from the most influential actors in the field, e.g. World Health Organization, World Bank, and European Union. These agencies do indeed have a doctrine on international aid policy: to allocate disease control to the public sector and curative health care to the private sector, wherever possible. We examine whether there is evidence to support such a doctrine. Arguments justifying integration are discussed, as well as those that critically analyze the consequences of non-integration. Answers are sought to the crucial question of why important stakeholders continue to insist on separating disease control from curative care. We finally make a recommendation for all international actors to address health care and disease control together, from a systems perspective.

El control de enfermedades es más factible cuando se encuentra integrado con los servicios curativos de salud. Este artículo examina si la actual política de cooperación tiende a atribuir el control de enfermedades y servicios curativos a distintos sectores, impidiendo así su integración. Tradicionalmente, el control de enfermedades fue conceptualizado en programas verticales. Eso cambió mediante la visión comprensiva de Alma Ata, para luego ser reinstaurado por el enfoque de la Salud Primaria Selectiva. Analizamos documentos de los actores más influyentes, tales como la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), el Banco Mundial y la Unión Europea. Estas agencias sí tienen una doctrina en cooperación: la de colocar control de enfermedades dentro del sector público y servicios curativos dentro del sector privado, donde sea posible. Examinamos si hay un respaldo científico detrás de esta doctrina. Ponderamos los argumentos en pro de integración con las consecuencias descritas de no-integración. Determinamos cuáles son los motivos de los actores claves para seguir separando el control de enfermedades de los servicios curativos. Recomendamos, finalmente, a los actores que apoyen simultáneamente el control de enfermedades, los servicios y los sistemas de salud.

Assuntos