Explore the vast range of titles available.

Unless the concept is clearly understood, \"universal coverage\" (or universal health coverage, UHC) can be used to justify practically any health financing reform or scheme. This paper unpacks the definition of health financing for universal coverage as used in the World Health Organization's World health report 2010 to show how UHC embodies specific health system goals and intermediate objectives and, broadly, how health financing reforms can influence these. All countries seek to improve equity in the use of health services, service quality and financial protection for their populations. Hence, the pursuit of UHC is relevant to every country. Health financing policy is an integral part of efforts to move towards UHC, but for health financing policy to be aligned with the pursuit of UHC, health system reforms need to be aimed explicitly at improving coverage and the intermediate objectives linked to it, namely, efficiency, equity in health resource distribution and transparency and accountability. The unit of analysis for goals and objectives must be the population and health system as a whole. What matters is not how a particular financing scheme affects its individual members, but rather, how it influences progress towards UHC at the population level. Concern only with specific schemes is incompatible with a universal coverage approach and may even undermine UHC, particularly in terms of equity. Conversely, if a scheme is fully oriented towards system-level goals and objectives, it can further progress towards UHC. Policy and policy analysis need to shift from the scheme to the system level.

In its 2010 world health report, the World Health Organization noted that there is no single, best path for reforming health financing arrangements to move systems closer to universal health coverage, i.e. to improve access to needed, effective services while protecting users from financial ruin. However, this lack of a blueprint for health financing reforms was not meant to convey the message that \"anything goes\" on the path to universal health coverage. Universal health coverage goals of equitable access with financial protection require pooling arrangements that redistribute prepaid resources to individuals with the greatest health service needs. Fragmentation exists when there are barriers to this redistribution, with perhaps a worst-case scenario where there are different schemes for different social groups. Countries cannot simply spend their way to universal health coverage. To sustain progress, efficiency and accountability must be ensured. The main health financing instrument for promoting efficiency in the use of funds is purchasing, and more specifically, strategic purchasing.

Universal health coverage (UHC) means that all people can access health services of good quality without experiencing financial hardship. Three health financing functions - revenue raising, pooling of funds and purchasing health services - are vital for UHC. This article focuses on pooling: the accumulation and management of prepaid financial resources. Pooling creates opportunities for redistribution of resources to support equitable access to needed services and greater financial protection even if additional revenues for UHC cannot be raised. However, in many countries pooling arrangements are very fragmented, which create barriers to redistribution. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of pooling reform options to support countries who are exploring ways to enhance redistribution of funds. We outline four broad types of pooling reforms and discuss their potential and challenges in addressing fragmentation of health financing: (i) shifting to compulsory or automatic coverage for everybody; (ii) merging different pools to increase the number of pool members and the diversity of pool members' health needs and risks; (iii) cross-subsidization of pools that have members with lower revenues and higher health risks; and (iv) harmonization across pools, such as benefits, payment methods and rates. Countries can combine several reform elements. Whether the potential for redistribution is actually realized through a pooling reform also depends on the alignment of the pooling structure with revenue raising and purchasing arrangements. Finally, the scope for reform is constrained by institutional and political feasibility, and the political economy around pooling reforms needs to be anticipated and managed.

The interplay between devolution, health financing and public financial management processes in health—or the lack of coherence between them—can have profound implications for a country’s progress towards universal health coverage. This paper explores this relationship in seven Asian and African countries (Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia and the Philippines), highlighting challenges and suggesting policy solutions. First, subnational governments rely heavily on transfers from central governments, and most are not required to allocate a minimum share of their budget to health. Central governments channelling more funds to subnational governments through conditional grants is a promising way to increase public financing for health. Second, devolution makes it difficult to pool funding across populations by fragmenting them geographically. Greater fiscal equalisation through improved revenue sharing arrangements and, where applicable, using budgetary funds to subsidise the poor in government-financed health insurance schemes could bridge the gap. Third, weak budget planning across levels could be improved by aligning budget structures, building subnational budgeting capacity and strengthening coordination across levels. Fourth, delays in central transfers and complicated procedures for approvals and disbursements stymie expenditure management at subnational levels. Simplifying processes and enhancing visibility over funding flows, including through digitalised information systems, promise to improve expenditure management and oversight in health. Fifth, subnational governments purchase services primarily through line-item budgets. Shifting to practices that link financial allocations with population health needs and facility performance, combined with reforms to grant commensurate autonomy to facilities, has the potential to enable more strategic purchasing.

Options for health financing reform are often portrayed as a choice between general taxation (known as the Beveridge model) and social health insurance (known as the Bismarck model). Ten years of health financing reform in Kyrgyzstan, since the introduction of its compulsory health insurance fund in 1997, provide an excellent example of why it is wrong to reduce health financing policy to a choice between the Beveridge and Bismarck models. Rather than fragment the system according to the insurance status of the population, as many other low- and middle-income countries have done, the Kyrgyz reforms were guided by the objective of having a single system for the entire population. Key features include the role and gradual development of the compulsory health insurance fund as the single purchaser of health-care services for the entire population using output-based payment methods, the complete restructuring of pooling arrangements from the former decentralized budgetary structure to a single national pool, and the establishment of an explicit benefit package. Central to the process was the transformation of the role of general budget revenues - the main source of public funding for health - from directly subsidizing the supply of services to subsidizing the purchase of services on behalf of the entire population by redirecting them into the health insurance fund. Through their approach to health financing policy, and pooling in particular, the Kyrgyz health reformers demonstrated that different sources of funds can be used in an explicitly complementary manner to enable the creation of a unified, universal system.

Global and national initiatives focused on health systems strengthening, universal health coverage, health security, and resilience suffer when these terms are not well understood or believed to be different ways of saying the same thing. Conceptual clarity is essential for a systematic approach to policy-making. Confusion and inefficiency arise when health system strengthening is defined as an objective and also when universal health coverage, health security or resilience are described as separate programmes to be implemented. So here is a simple guide: health system strengthening is what they do; universal health coverage, health security and resilience are what they want.

Unless the concept is clearly understood, \"universal coverage\" (or universal health coverage, UHC) can be used to justify practically any health financing reform or scheme. This paper unpacks the definition of health financing for universal coverage as used in the World Health Organization's World health report 2010 to show how UHC embodies specific health system goals and intermediate objectives and, broadly, how health financing reforms can influence these.

Health financing is a complex health system function, which cannot be analysed accurately without tracking each step of the flow of funds separately. We analysed the revenue mix of the Hungarian health insurance fund from 1994 to 2015 and discuss the policy implications of our findings. We used the System of Health Accounts published in 2000 and the revised version of 2011, which introduced separate classifications for the sources of health expenditure. Based on the 2000 version, health insurance contributions were the main source of public funding in Hungary. According to the 2011 version, nearly 70% of health insurance fund revenues came from government tax transfers in 2015, illustrating the striking difference in how revenues and expenditures are reported using this version. Use of the 2011 version will better inform national policy-making and international comparisons and facilitate documentation and analysis of how countries have adapted their revenue mix to changing macroeconomic circumstances. The finding that Hungary has a predominantly tax-funded social health insurance system suggests that traditional understanding and description of health-financing models are no longer adequate and may limit consideration of potential resource-generation options. Hungary is also a good example of how separating revenue generation and pooling broadens policy options to tackle gaps in social health insurance coverage, although the government did not act on these due to the lack of a consistent health-financing strategy. The findings may be particularly relevant for low- and middle-income countries that are trying to expand social health insurance coverage despite limited formal employment.

In this issue, Holmes et al. show the increasing convergence in the understanding of HIV services within the context of the overall UHC agenda. These efforts to show coherence are critical to developing more cohesive and patient-centred approaches to financing and service delivery for health overall and for HIV services more specifically. However, the targets of the sustainable development goals are to be achieved within ten years and therefore, it is time to move from rhetoric and concepts to action. This action should transform global commitments into countrytailored approaches, priorities and support centred on coverage and outcomes.