BACKGROUND: Contracting out of governmental health services is a financing strategy that governs the way in which public sector funds are used to have services delivered by non-governmental health service providers (NGPs). It represents a contract between the government and an NGP, detailing the mechanisms and conditions by which the latter should provide health care on behalf of the government. Contracting out is intended to improve the delivery and use of healthcare services. This Review updates a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of contracting out governmental clinical health services to non-governmental service provider/s, on (i) utilisation of clinical health services; (ii) improvement in population health outcomes; (iii) improvement in equity of utilisation of these services; (iv) costs and cost-effectiveness of delivering the services; and (v) improvement in health systems performance.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, ProQuest, and Global Health on 07 April 2017, along with two trials registers - ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform - on 17 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies, comparing government-delivered clinical health services versus those contracted out to NGPs, or comparing different models of non-governmental-delivered clinical health services.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the net effect for all outcomes. A positive value favours the intervention whilst a negative value favours the control. Effect estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a Summary of Findings table.
MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies, a cluster-randomised trial conducted in Cambodia, and a controlled before-after study conducted in Guatemala. Both studies reported that contracting out over 12 months probably makes little or no difference in (i) immunisation uptake of children 12 to 24 months old (moderate-certainty evidence), (ii) the number of women who had more than two antenatal care visits (moderate-certainty evidence), and (iii) female use of contraceptives (moderate-certainty evidence).The Cambodia trial reported that contracting out may make little or no difference in the mortality over 12 months of children younger than one year of age (net effect = -4.3%, intervention effect P = 0.36, clustered standard error (SE) = 3.0%; low-certainty evidence), nor to the incidence of childhood diarrhoea (net effect = -16.2%, intervention effect P = 0.07, clustered SE = 19.0%; low-certainty evidence). The Cambodia study found that contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending over 12 months on curative care (net effect = $ -19.25 (2003 USD), intervention effect P = 0.01, clustered SE = $ 5.12; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report equity in the use of clinical health services and in adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update confirms the findings of the original review. Contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending on curative care (moderate-certainty evidence), but probably makes little or no difference in other health utilisation or service delivery outcomes (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). Therefore, contracting out programmes may be no better or worse than government-provided services, although additional rigorously designed studies may change this result. The literature provides many examples of contracting out programmes, which implies that this is a feasible response when governments fail to provide good clinical health care. Future contracting out programmes should be framed within a rigorous study design to allow valid and reliable measures of their effects. Such studies should include qualitative research that assesses the views of programme implementers and beneficiaries, and records implementation mechanisms. This approach may reveal enablers for, and barriers to, successful implementation of such programmes.
MAIN FINDINGS: The authors included evidence from 16 studies assessing the effectiveness of 13 contracted-out health-service interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, South Asia and East Asia and the Pacific. The results of the review are heterogeneous. On the one hand, the authors deduce that contracting-out health services significantly improves access and availability, especially within under-served regions. On the other hand, they fail to find conclusive evidence concerning the impact of contracting-out on other dimensions of health-system performance such as equity, quality and efficiency. Indeed, the authors report that these factors are addressed in only a very few studies, and they highlight the need for more rigorous studies exploring the impact of contracting-out health services on the equity, quality and efficiency of health systems. The authors suggest that the effectiveness and success of contracting-out depend on a range of contextual and contract-design factors. More specifically, they observe that contractual financial incentives and the application of a payment-by-performance scheme have been demonstrated to be key determinants in the success of an intervention.Contextual factors related to the capacity of the public sector to develop the contracted-out services and the degree to which these services complement or replace existing services are also important determinants of the impact of contracted-out interventions on the equity, access, quality and efficiency of health systems. Finally, the authors highlight the need for more research on possible side effects of contracting-out interventions, which so far have been only barely assessed. BACKGROUND: During the past decade, improving the performance of health systems has become a key objective for the governments of many developing countries. Contracting-out is defined as a “contractual arrangement by which the government provides compensation to private providers in exchange for a defined set of health services for specified target population”. By providing incentives to health-care professionals and by fostering competition among health-service providers, contracting-out health-service interventions can improve the quality and efficiency of health-care services, leading to improvements in the performance of the health system. The findings of previous reviews on the effectiveness of contracting-out health services are mixed, and this systematic review aims to shed light on the effectiveness of contracting-out on the four main dimensions of health-system performance: access, equity, quality and efficiency. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: To assess and synthesise the evidence on the impact of contracting-out interventions on health-system performance in developing countries. METHODOLOGY: The authors included all studies assessing the effectiveness of contracting-out health-care services to private providers in developing countries. As quality criteria, the authors only included studies that used one of the following study designs: experimental, non-randomised controlled designs, before-and-after designs without controls and cross-sectional studies with controls. They conducted a systematic search in published and unpublished literature for relevant studies. They searched the electronic database PubMed, and used the search engine Google. They also searched the websites of relevant organisations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization, and checked previous reviews in the field and other literature for additional studies.Finally, the authors grouped the results by health-system performance dimension – access, equity, quality and efficiency – and synthesised the results in a narrative format. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: This systematic review has clearly defined inclusion criteria and use appropriate methods for analysis of results. It has some limitations however. The search is not sufficiently comprehensive, and it is not clear whether language bias is avoided. Moreover, although the inclusion criteria in terms of methodology are wide, the authors do not report any systematic assessment of the quality of included studies. The authors acknowledge the weaknesses of the evidence base and do not provide and strong policy conclusions, and this mitigates some of the limitations of the review.
The purpose of this study is to review the research literature on the effectiveness of contracting-out of primary health care services and its impact on both programme and health systems performance in low- and middle-income countries. Due to the heightened interest in improving accountability relationships in the health sector and in rapidly scaling up priority interventions, there is an increasing amount of interest in and experimentation with contracting-out. Overall, while the review of the selected studies suggests that contracting-out has in many cases improved access to services, the effects on other performance dimensions such as equity, quality and efficiency are often unknown. Moreover, little is known about the system-wide effects of contracting-out, which could be either positive or negative. Although the study results leave open the question of how contracting-out can be used as a policy tool to improve overall health system performance, the results indicate that the context in which contracting-out is implemented and the design features of the interventions are likely to greatly influence the chances for success.
Contracting out of governmental health services is a financing strategy that governs the way in which public sector funds are used to have services delivered by non-governmental health service providers (NGPs). It represents a contract between the government and an NGP, detailing the mechanisms and conditions by which the latter should provide health care on behalf of the government. Contracting out is intended to improve the delivery and use of healthcare services. This Review updates a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess effects of contracting out governmental clinical health services to non-governmental service provider/s, on (i) utilisation of clinical health services; (ii) improvement in population health outcomes; (iii) improvement in equity of utilisation of these services; (iv) costs and cost-effectiveness of delivering the services; and (v) improvement in health systems performance.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, ProQuest, and Global Health on 07 April 2017, along with two trials registers - ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform - on 17 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies, comparing government-delivered clinical health services versus those contracted out to NGPs, or comparing different models of non-governmental-delivered clinical health services.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the net effect for all outcomes. A positive value favours the intervention whilst a negative value favours the control. Effect estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a Summary of Findings table.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included two studies, a cluster-randomised trial conducted in Cambodia, and a controlled before-after study conducted in Guatemala. Both studies reported that contracting out over 12 months probably makes little or no difference in (i) immunisation uptake of children 12 to 24 months old (moderate-certainty evidence), (ii) the number of women who had more than two antenatal care visits (moderate-certainty evidence), and (iii) female use of contraceptives (moderate-certainty evidence).The Cambodia trial reported that contracting out may make little or no difference in the mortality over 12 months of children younger than one year of age (net effect = -4.3%, intervention effect P = 0.36, clustered standard error (SE) = 3.0%; low-certainty evidence), nor to the incidence of childhood diarrhoea (net effect = -16.2%, intervention effect P = 0.07, clustered SE = 19.0%; low-certainty evidence). The Cambodia study found that contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending over 12 months on curative care (net effect = $ -19.25 (2003 USD), intervention effect P = 0.01, clustered SE = $ 5.12; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report equity in the use of clinical health services and in adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
This update confirms the findings of the original review. Contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending on curative care (moderate-certainty evidence), but probably makes little or no difference in other health utilisation or service delivery outcomes (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). Therefore, contracting out programmes may be no better or worse than government-provided services, although additional rigorously designed studies may change this result. The literature provides many examples of contracting out programmes, which implies that this is a feasible response when governments fail to provide good clinical health care. Future contracting out programmes should be framed within a rigorous study design to allow valid and reliable measures of their effects. Such studies should include qualitative research that assesses the views of programme implementers and beneficiaries, and records implementation mechanisms. This approach may reveal enablers for, and barriers to, successful implementation of such programmes.
