How to (or not to) ... measure performance against the Abuja target for public health expenditure

Sophie Witter, Alex Jones, Tim Ensor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2001, African heads of state committed 'to set a target of allocating at least 15% of our annual budget to the improvement of the health sector'. This target has since been used as a benchmark to hold governments accountable. However, it was never followed by a set of guidelines as to how it should be measured in practice. This article sets out some of the areas of ambiguity and argues for an interpretation which focuses on actual expenditure, rather than budgets (which are theoretical), and which captures areas of spending that are subject to government discretion. These are largely domestic sources, but include budget support, which is externally derived but subject to Ministry of Finance sectoral allocation. Theoretical and practical arguments in favour of this recommendation are recommended using a case study from Sierra Leone. It is recommended that all discretionary spending by government is included in the numerator and denominator when calculating performance against the target, including spending by all ministries on health, social health insurance payments, debt relief funds and budget support. Conversely, all forms of private payment and earmarked aid should be excluded. The authors argue that the target, while an important vehicle for tracking political commitment to the sector, should be assessed intelligently by governments, which have legitimate wider public finance objectives of maximizing overall social returns, and should be complemented by a wider range of indicators, to avoid distortions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)450-455
Number of pages6
JournalHealth Policy and Planning
Volume29
Issue number4
Early online date3 Jun 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2014

Fingerprint

Budgets
Health Expenditures
Public Health
Sierra Leone
Benchmarking
Social Security
Health
Financial Management
Health Insurance
Head
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Abuja target
  • health financing
  • Africa

Cite this

How to (or not to) ... measure performance against the Abuja target for public health expenditure. / Witter, Sophie; Jones, Alex; Ensor, Tim.

In: Health Policy and Planning, Vol. 29, No. 4, 07.2014, p. 450-455.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Witter, Sophie ; Jones, Alex ; Ensor, Tim. / How to (or not to) ... measure performance against the Abuja target for public health expenditure. In: Health Policy and Planning. 2014 ; Vol. 29, No. 4. pp. 450-455.
@article{f68d19afa82c4d488526c96cc0a8df0c,
title = "How to (or not to) ... measure performance against the Abuja target for public health expenditure",
abstract = "In 2001, African heads of state committed 'to set a target of allocating at least 15{\%} of our annual budget to the improvement of the health sector'. This target has since been used as a benchmark to hold governments accountable. However, it was never followed by a set of guidelines as to how it should be measured in practice. This article sets out some of the areas of ambiguity and argues for an interpretation which focuses on actual expenditure, rather than budgets (which are theoretical), and which captures areas of spending that are subject to government discretion. These are largely domestic sources, but include budget support, which is externally derived but subject to Ministry of Finance sectoral allocation. Theoretical and practical arguments in favour of this recommendation are recommended using a case study from Sierra Leone. It is recommended that all discretionary spending by government is included in the numerator and denominator when calculating performance against the target, including spending by all ministries on health, social health insurance payments, debt relief funds and budget support. Conversely, all forms of private payment and earmarked aid should be excluded. The authors argue that the target, while an important vehicle for tracking political commitment to the sector, should be assessed intelligently by governments, which have legitimate wider public finance objectives of maximizing overall social returns, and should be complemented by a wider range of indicators, to avoid distortions.",
keywords = "Abuja target, health financing, Africa",
author = "Sophie Witter and Alex Jones and Tim Ensor",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1093/heapol/czt031",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "450--455",
journal = "Health Policy and Planning",
issn = "0268-1080",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to (or not to) ... measure performance against the Abuja target for public health expenditure

AU - Witter, Sophie

AU - Jones, Alex

AU - Ensor, Tim

PY - 2014/7

Y1 - 2014/7

N2 - In 2001, African heads of state committed 'to set a target of allocating at least 15% of our annual budget to the improvement of the health sector'. This target has since been used as a benchmark to hold governments accountable. However, it was never followed by a set of guidelines as to how it should be measured in practice. This article sets out some of the areas of ambiguity and argues for an interpretation which focuses on actual expenditure, rather than budgets (which are theoretical), and which captures areas of spending that are subject to government discretion. These are largely domestic sources, but include budget support, which is externally derived but subject to Ministry of Finance sectoral allocation. Theoretical and practical arguments in favour of this recommendation are recommended using a case study from Sierra Leone. It is recommended that all discretionary spending by government is included in the numerator and denominator when calculating performance against the target, including spending by all ministries on health, social health insurance payments, debt relief funds and budget support. Conversely, all forms of private payment and earmarked aid should be excluded. The authors argue that the target, while an important vehicle for tracking political commitment to the sector, should be assessed intelligently by governments, which have legitimate wider public finance objectives of maximizing overall social returns, and should be complemented by a wider range of indicators, to avoid distortions.

AB - In 2001, African heads of state committed 'to set a target of allocating at least 15% of our annual budget to the improvement of the health sector'. This target has since been used as a benchmark to hold governments accountable. However, it was never followed by a set of guidelines as to how it should be measured in practice. This article sets out some of the areas of ambiguity and argues for an interpretation which focuses on actual expenditure, rather than budgets (which are theoretical), and which captures areas of spending that are subject to government discretion. These are largely domestic sources, but include budget support, which is externally derived but subject to Ministry of Finance sectoral allocation. Theoretical and practical arguments in favour of this recommendation are recommended using a case study from Sierra Leone. It is recommended that all discretionary spending by government is included in the numerator and denominator when calculating performance against the target, including spending by all ministries on health, social health insurance payments, debt relief funds and budget support. Conversely, all forms of private payment and earmarked aid should be excluded. The authors argue that the target, while an important vehicle for tracking political commitment to the sector, should be assessed intelligently by governments, which have legitimate wider public finance objectives of maximizing overall social returns, and should be complemented by a wider range of indicators, to avoid distortions.

KW - Abuja target

KW - health financing

KW - Africa

U2 - 10.1093/heapol/czt031

DO - 10.1093/heapol/czt031

M3 - Article

C2 - 23735738

VL - 29

SP - 450

EP - 455

JO - Health Policy and Planning

JF - Health Policy and Planning

SN - 0268-1080

IS - 4

ER -