|Year : 2012 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 4-10
Public health care financing in Nigeria: Which way forward?
Babayemi O Olakunde
Department of Program Coordination, National Agency for the Control of AIDS, Abuja, Nigeria
|Date of Web Publication||28-Aug-2012|
Babayemi O Olakunde
National Agency for the Control of AIDS. Plot 823, Ralph Shodehinde Street, Central Area, Abuja
| Abstract|| |
The way a country finances its health care system is a key determinant of the health of its citizenry. Selection of an adequate and efficient method(s) of financing in addition to organizational delivery structure for health services is essential if a country is set to achieve its national health objective of providing health for all. Health care in Nigeria is financed by tax revenue, out-of-pocket payments, donor funding, and health insurance (social and community). However, achieving successful health care financing system continues to be a challenge in Nigeria. This article examines the different financing mechanisms that have been used in Nigeria, including the National Primary Health Care Development Fund proposed for increasing the resource allocation to primary health care. It draws on available and relevant literature to provide an overview and the state of public health care financing in Nigeria. This article concludes by recommending the need for Nigeria to explore and strengthen other mechanisms of health system and shift focus from out-of-pocket payments, address the issues that have undermined public health care financing in Nigeria, improve on evidence-based planning, and prompt implementation of the National Health Bill when signed into law.
Keywords: Health care financing, Nigeria, primary health care
|How to cite this article:|
Olakunde BO. Public health care financing in Nigeria: Which way forward?. Ann Nigerian Med 2012;6:4-10
| Introduction|| |
The first wealth of a nation is its health. There is empirical evidence that the health of a nation significantly enhances its economic development, and vice versa.  HIV/AIDS, maternal mortality, under-5 mortality, malaria, and tuberculosis have undermined development and impoverished many developing nations such as Nigeria. Nonetheless, it has been enunciated that the pursuit of better health should not await an improved economy, rather measures to improve health will themselves contribute to economic growth.  The way a country finances its health care system is a key determinant of the health of its citizenry.  Selection of an adequate and efficient method(s) of financing in addition to organizational delivery structure for health services is essential if a country is set to achieve its national health objective of providing health for all. ,
A health care financing system involves the means in which funds are generated, allocated, and utilized for health care. It has three basic functions of collecting revenues, pooling resources, and purchasing services. , The commonly used mechanisms for implementing these functions include tax-based financing, out-of-pocket payments, donor funding, and health insurance (social and private).  These methods are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most health systems adopt a mixture of various methods.  The success of the different health financing methods can be measured by the overall effect on equity of access and health outcomes, revenue generation and efficiency, and the effects on user behavior and provider. 
Apropos public health care financing in Nigeria, this article briefly explores the different mechanisms that have been used, including the National Primary Health Care Development Fund (NPHCDF) initiative proposed in the National health Bill. It draws on available and relevant literature to provide an overview and the state of public health care financing in Nigeria. This article is not a comprehensive review of all the available literature on health care financing in Nigeria.
| The Nigerian Health Care Financing System|| |
The organization of health services in Nigeria is complex. It includes a wide range of providers in both the public and private sectors (private for profit providers, non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, religious, and traditional care providers).  In the public sectors, Nigeria operates a decentralized health system run by the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH), State Ministry of Health (SMOH), and Local Government Health Department (LGHD). The FMOH is the overall health policy formulating body. It coordinates and supervises the activities of the other levels. In addition, it provides tertiary care through teaching hospitals and federal medical centers. The SMOHs provide secondary care through the state hospitals and comprehensive health centers while LGHDs provide primary health care (PHC) services through the primary health centres. Although the local governments have the main responsibility of managing the PHC, all the three tiers of government and various agencies participate in the management of the PHC. This at times results in duplication, overlap, and confusion of roles and responsibilities. 
Health care in Nigeria is financed by a combination of tax revenue, out-of-pocket payments, donor funding, and health insurance (social and community).  Nigeria's health expenditure is relatively low, even when compared with other African countries. The total health expenditure (THE) as percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) from 1998 to 2000 was less than 5%, falling behind THE/GDP ratio in other developing countries such as Kenya (5.3%), Zambia (6.2%), Tanzania (6.8%), Malawi (7.2%), and South Africa (7.5%). 
Achieving a successful health care financing system continues to be a challenge in Nigeria. Limited institutional capacity, corruption, unstable economic, and political context have been identified as factors why some mechanisms of financing health care have not worked effectively. 
Health financing systems where government revenues are the main source of health care expenditure are referred to as tax-based systems.  Funds are usually generated through taxation or other government revenues. Although the Nigerian government generates revenue through taxation, the bulk of the revenue is derived from the sale of oil and gas. Revenues are raised at the federal, state, or local government levels. However, the federally generated revenue which is shared according to a formula forms the majority of the funds for the other tiers of government. The states and local governments being closer to PHC are expected to provide adequate funding for PHC, but owing to their low internal revenue generation capacities, most of them still largely depend on the allocation from the federal government. The federal allocations to the states and local governments are not earmarked neither do the states and local governments are required to provide budget and expenditure reports to the federal government.  By implication, the federal government does not have a substantial control on funds allocated for both secondary and primary health services.
The total government health expenditure as a proportion of THE was estimated as 18.69% in 2003, 26.40% in 2004, and 26.02% in 2005.  Remarkably, the federal budgetary component of health expenditure has increased over the years. It increased from 1.7% in 1991 to 7.2% in 2007. , Nevertheless, the budgetary allocation for health is still below the 15% signed by the Nigerian government in the Abuja declaration.  Given this level of government spending, it will be very difficult to provide the essential health care services, and with the vagaries of the oil prices in the world market, a low tax base, and other preponderant issues, health care will always be at the peril of underfunding by the Nigerian government.
This involves payment for health care at the point of service. The charges levied for health care services are referred to as user fees. The scope of user fees is quite variable and can include any combination of drug costs, medical material costs, entrance fees, and consultation fees.  Out-of-pockets account for the highest proportion of health expenditure in Nigeria. Out-of-pocket expenditure as a proportion of THE averaged 64.59% from 1998 to 2002.  In 2003, it accounted for 74% of THE. It decreased to 66% in 2004 and later increased to 68% in 2005.  This implies that households bear the highest burden of health expenditure in Nigeria.
User fee was introduced by the Nigerian government in 1998 under the Bamako Initiative which advocated for cost sharing and community participation to increase the sustainability and quality of health care.  It was proposed that user fee will increase the resources available for health care and improve efficiency as well as equity to health care. , The available evidence on the impact of user fees is equivocal. Hitherto, the bone of contention is to retain or remove user fee? 
The issue of user fee in Nigeria has attracted scholars; however, there is dearth of information on the effect of user fee on revenue generation, health care seeking behaviour, access to care, efficiency, and utilization of services in Nigeria. Ogunbekun et al. reported that without accompanying visible quality improvement, user fees will result in lower utilization of health care services.  A study that evaluated the effect of user fee on availability of drugs reported that user fee has not lead to increased drug availability.  However, another study reported a better availability of drugs with the rider that it had given rise to excessive drug prescription.  Negative effects have also been reported on the impact of user fees on health seeking behavior and equity.  In a study by Uneke et al., it was reported that majority of study participants would prefer paying user fees if they are affordable and would guarantee efficient and quality service.  However, it should be noted that the willingness to pay does not translate to ability to pay. , The ability to pay might require poor household sacrificing their longer term economic well-being. This is referred to as catastrophic health expenditure  and this has been shown to be high in Nigeria.  The use of waivers and/or exemptions in Nigeria has also been suggested, but the implementation of waiver and exemption is fraught with challenges that have made it ineffective in many settings. , Such difficulties include identification of eligible poor, limited administrative capacity, willingness of the health workers in enforcement of the guidelines, and inconsistencies in granting of exemptions. 
James et al. concluded that abolishing user fees may not be appropriate in all contexts, nonetheless, in settings where it has been shown to have had limited benefits, removal should undoubtedly be a favorable policy options.  User fees have been removed by the federal government and some states for the treatment of malaria in the under-5s and pregnant women. 
Social Health Insurance
Social Health Insurance (SHI) is a system of financing health care through contributions to an insurance fund that operates within a tight framework of government regulations.  It is a form of mandatory insurance scheme (normally on a national scale). It provides a pool of funds to cover the cost of health care and it also has a social equity function which eliminates barriers to obtaining health care services at the time of need especially for the vulnerable groups.  In SHI, every citizen is required to make contributions. Governments may contribute on behalf of the poorest and the unemployed; employers also usually contribute on behalf of their employees.  The Nigerian government established the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) under Act 35 of 1999 with the aim of improving access to health care and reducing the financial burden of out-of-pocket payment for health care services.  The NHIS became fully operational in 2005.
The NHIS is organized into the following social health insurance programmes (SHIPs): Formal Sector; Urban Self-employed; Rural Community; Children Under-Five; Permanently Disabled Persons; Prison Inmates; Tertiary Institutions and Voluntary Participants; and Armed Forces, Police and other Uniformed Services.  It is only the formal sector SHIP that is currently operational.  Membership with the formal sector SHIP is mandatory for federal government employees and about 90% coverage has been achieved. The formal sector SHIP is presently extending to include all state and local government employees with Bauchi and Cross River having achieved full coverage. 
There has been a lag in the expansion of NHIS to achieve a considerable coverage since it became operational. A World Bank survey in 2008 reported that about 0.8% of the population was covered by NHIS.  This has attracted a lot of censure since many people are left out and not benefiting from it. The act that set up the NHIS makes it optional, and this has been pointed out to be one of the reasons many Nigerians are not benefiting from it.  The NHIS is focused on making the scheme mandatory for every Nigerian and aims to get every Nigerian enlisted by December 2015.  Other factors such as poor medical facilities, shortage of medical personal, lack of awareness, and poor funding have been identified as challenges that affect the efficacy of NHIS in Nigeria. ,,, Various stakeholders have also raised issues about the potential mismanagement and bureaucracy that may affect the scheme. 
Community-Based Health Insurance
Community-Based Health Insurance (CBHI) is a form of private health insurance whereby individuals, families, or community groups finance or co-finance costs of health services.  Other forms of private health insurance include non-profit and for-profit plans.  Usually, private health insurance is voluntary compared with SHI schemes which tend to be mandatory.
CBHI is designed for people living in the rural area and people in the informal sector who cannot get adequate public, private, or employer-sponsored insurance.  It usually involves some form of community involvement in their management. The effects of CBHI on equity, the quality, and efficiency health services are still ambiguous. [46-48] It has been shown that even when charges are small, the very poor are unable to enrol.  Thus, the existing inequalities may be worsened, since the less poor people are more likely to enrol and have improved access to care and financial protection.
The Nigerian government intends to use CBHI to cover people employed in the informal sector and in the rural area.  CBHI was piloted and introduced in Anambra State in 2003. However, since the change in government in 2005, the scheme has been dormant owing to the diminished support and interest by the new government. , A study that evaluated the impact of the Anambra community health care financing scheme in one of the communities on maternal health services reported that the scheme was highly accepted and it provided adequate funds for maternal health services for a great proportion of the rural communities.  CBHI has also been introduced in Lagos and Kwara state. ,
Designing, implementing, managing, and especially sustaining CBHI are complex. It requires a strong intuitional capacity, technical expertise, and management skills.  These challenges could limit the success of the scheme in Nigeria.  Low enrolment rates greatly undermine the sustainability of CBHI. It is an important limiting factor and it has been reported in studies that evaluated willingness to pay for CBHI. ,, Enrolment is affected by factors such as trust by the community in the organizer or manager of the scheme, attractiveness of the benefit package, affordability of the premium, and the quality of the health care.  To improve enrolment in Nigeria, the adoption of a sliding scale of premiums, such that financial contributions are set according to ability to pay has been suggested. , Atugbe et al. also reported that if varied forms of payment are allowed, such that households can choose to make contributions in whatever forms of payment they could afford, enrolment rate will be increased.  There is also need for awareness-raising, essentially in the rural areas and finally, government funding support has also been advocated to ensure the financial viability of CBHI in Nigeria. ,
This refers to financial assistance given to developing countries to support socioeconomic and health development. Financial assistance to Nigeria has not been tremendous. De facto, it witnessed a declining trend before the return of the democratic governance in 1999. 
The annual average official development assistance inflow from 1999 to 2007 was estimated at US$ 2.335 and US$4.674 per capita, respectively.  These figures are way below the Sub-Saharan African average of US$28 per capita (7,57). The contribution of development aid to health care financing in Nigeria was estimated as N27.87 billion (4% of THE) in 2003. This increased by 29% to N36.04 billion (4.6% of THE) in 2004 and by just 1% to N36.30 billion (4% of THE) in 2005.  Although the international assistance to the Nigerian health sector is increasing, it still accounts for a small proportion of public health expenditures.
The major challenges in Nigeria with donor funding are effective coordination of the funds and tracking donor resource flow.  The National Planning Commission coordinates the use of financial assistance to Nigeria. At the state and local government levels, the State Planning Commission or State Ministry of Finance coordinates the use of financial assistance and provides a link between the LGAs and the federal government.  The states vary in their capacities to effectively coordinate development aid. Other challenges with donor funding in Nigeria include the following: high cost of technical assistance, donor-driven approach to aid delivery, proliferation of aid agencies, uneven spread of donors' activities, institutional weaknesses, and problem of counterpart funding. 
The subject of aid effectiveness has largely been debated and its macroeconomic impact has also raised concerns, , nonetheless, it still remains an important health financing mechanisms for developing countries such as Nigeria.
| National PHC Development Fund|| |
PHC is the cornerstone of the Nigerian health system. However, in the last decades it has been in shambles, with its dismal state having a direct consequence on the overall performance of the health system.  Poor financing has been highly labeled has one of the problems on PHC in Nigeria.  Thus, addressing the perennial underfunding that has stifled PHC is high on the policy agenda as evident by the NPHCDF proposed in the recently passed national health bill.
NPHCDF is a pool of fund set aside for primary health care, with guidelines on how the funds should be allocated. The fund aims to pool resources from the government, international donor, and private sectors. The fund will be allotted for provision of basic minimum package of health services through the NHIS (50%); provision of essential drugs for primary health care (25%); the provision and maintenance of facilities, equipment, and transport (15%); and development of Human Resources for Primary Health Care (10%).  It will be disbursed by the NPHCDA through state primary health care boards for distribution to local government health authorities on the basis of commitment and adherence to the provision of the act that set up the development fund. ,
NPHCDF if established would liberate PHC from the recurrent problem of underfunding and consolidate the efforts toward improving health care services in Nigeria. This fund should also improve the public-private partnerships to mobilize funds for health care in Nigeria. With the establishment of the fund, foreign aids could be paid into this fund and disbursed centrally thus addressing issue of national priority in contrast to the current situation where the three tiers of government get grants independently from foreign donor for different priorities that do not align with national priorities.
| Conclusion|| |
The Nigeria government uses different mechanisms for public health care financing; however, the health financing system is still characterized by low investment by the government, extensive out-of-pocket payments, limited insurance coverage, and low donor funding. Thus, achieving the objectives of good health outcome, equity, patients, and providers' satisfaction is very challenging. However, there may still be a way forward for Nigeria. This will require strengthening the health care financing system. The system should ensure that everyone who requires health care services is able to access them and not denied due to inability to pay. Citizens must be able to benefit from at least one of the financing mechanism in accessing health care services.
Given the backdrop of the weak institutional capacity, technical expertise, and high level of poverty, Nigeria will have to rely on a combination of mechanisms to achieve effective health care financing system. To achieve universal coverage of health care services for the poor, Nigeria must move from out-of-pocket payments to other mechanisms of financing. While it might be difficult to completely abolish user fees, user fees for interventions that require wide coverage should be reduced or removed to increase access by the poor. The SHI and CBHI need to be scaled up to achieve a wider coverage. Donor funding should be put into more effective use to augment the other mechanisms of financing.
The time has come for health care financing to be seen by the Nigerian government as an investment, which certainly requires an effective management (political commitment) for it to be profitable. Other factors such as lack of awareness, corruption, and unstable economy that have undermined health care financing in Nigeria need to be addressed exigently. Another important challenge in Nigeria's health care system is the lack of use of evidence for planning and policy making. This could be attributed to dearth of relevant research evidence. Health care financing needs to be informed by research so that planning will be evidence based. Collection of reliable, relevant, and timely data for planning and evaluating policies should be improved in Nigeria.
The PHCDF initiative is laudable and if effectively managed, it could be the panacea for PHC in Nigeria. Fundamentally is the prompt implementation of the fund after it has been signed into law. A policy on paper but not in practice is of no relevance.
| References|| |
|1.||Atun RA, Fitzpatrick S. Advancing Economic Growth: Investing in Health. A summary of the issues discussed at a Chatham House conference held on 22-23 June 2005.[Online]. Available from: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/3312_investhealth.pdf. [Accessed 2011 Apr 24]. |
|2.||Alsan M, Bloom DE, Canning D. The effect of population health on foreign direct investment inflows to low- and middle-income countries. World Dev 2006;34:613-30. |
|3.||Carrin G, Evans D, Xu k. Designing health financing policy towards universal coverage. Bull World Health Organ 2007;85:652. |
|4.||Drouin A. Methods of financing health care: A rational use of financing mechanisms to achieve universal coverage. Technical report 05. International Social Security Association; 2008. |
|5.||Gottret P, Schieber G. Health Financing Revisited: A Practioner′s Guide. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2006. |
|6.||Drechsler D, Jütting J. Private Health Insurance in Low and Middle-Income Countries: Scope, Limitations, and Policy Responses. Issy-les Moulineaux: OECD Development Centre; 2005. |
|7.||Palmer N, Mueller DH, Gilson L, Mills A, Haines A. Health financing to promote access in low income settings - How much do we know? Lancet 2004;364:1365-70. |
|8.||World Health Organization. Country Cooperation Strategy: Federal Republic of Nigeria 2002-2007. Brazzaville: World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa.[Online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/countries/nga/about/ccs_strategy02_07.pdf [Accessed 2011 Apr 24]. |
|9.||World Bank. Improving Primary Health Care Delivery in Nigeria Evidence from Four States. Working paper No 187. Washington DC: World Bank; 2010. |
|10.||World Health Oranization. WHO Country Cooperation Strategy: Nigeria 2008-2013. Brazzaville: WHO Regional office for Africa; 2009. |
|11.||Soyinbo A. National Health Accounts of Nigeria 1999-2002. Final report submitted to World Health Organization. Ibadan: University of Ibadan; 2005. |
|12.||Adinma ED, Adinma BJ. Community based healthcare financing: An untapped option to a more effective healthcare funding in Nigeria. Niger Med J 2010;51:95-100. |
|13.||Savedoff W. Tax-based financing for health system: Options and experiences. Geneva: WHO; 2004. |
|14.||Nigerian Health system.[Online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/pmnch/countries/nigeria-plan-chapter-3.pdf [Accessed 2011 Apr 27]. |
|15.||Soyibo A, Olaniyan O, Lawanson AO. National Health Accounts of Nigeria 2003-2005: Incorporating Sub-National Health Accounts of States. Main report submitted to Federal Ministry of Health. Ibadan: University of Ibadan; 2009. |
|16.||Lagarde M, Palmer N. Evidence from Systematic Reviews to Inform Decision-Making Regarding Financing Mechanisms That Improve Access to Health Services for Poor People: A Policy Brief Prepared for the International Dialogue on Evidence-Informed Action to Achieve Health Goals in Developing Countries (IDEAHealth) in Khon Kaen; Thailand. 13-16 December 2006. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and systems Research; 2006. |
|17.||Federal Ministry of Health. The Bamako Initiative Programme in Nigeria. Abuja: Federal Ministry Of Health, Bamako Initiative Unit; 1994. |
|18.||Griffin C. Welfare Gains from User Charges for Government Health Services. Health Policy Plan 1992;7:177-80. |
|19.||World Bank. Financing Health Care in developing Countries: An Agenda for Reform. Washington DC; World Bank; 1987. |
|20.||James CD, Hanson K, McPake B, Balabanova D, Gwatkin D, Hopwood I, et al. To retain or remove user fees?: Reflections on the current debate in low- and middle-income countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006;5:137-53. |
|21.||Ogunbekun I, Adeyi O, Wouters A, Morrow RH. Costs and financing of improvements in the quality of maternal health services through the Bamako Initiative in Nigeria. Health Policy Plan 1996;11:369-84. |
|22.||Sambo MN, Lewis I, Sabitu K. Essential drugs in primary health centres of north central Nigeria: Where is Bamako initiative? Niger J Clin Pract 2008;11:9-13. |
|23.||Uzochukwu BS, Onwujekwe OE, Akpala CO. Effect of the Bamako-Initiative drug revolving fund on availability and rational use of essential drugs in primary health care facilities in south-east Nigeria. Health Policy Plan 2002;17:378-83. |
|24.||Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O, Eriksson B. Inequity in the Bamako Initiative programme-Implications for the treatment of malaria in south-east Nigeria. Int J Health Plann Manage 2004;19:S107-16. |
|25.||Uneke CJ, Ogbonna A, Ezeoha A, Oyibo PG, Onwe F, Ndukwe CD. User fees in health services in Nigeria: The health policy implications. Internet J Health 2009;8:2‡ . |
|26.||McPake B. User charges for health services in developing countries: A review of the economic literature. Soc Sci Med 1993;36:1397-405. |
|27.||Russell S. Ability to pay for health care: Concepts and evidence. Health Policy Plan 1996;11:219-37. |
|28.||Berki SE. A look at catastrophic medical expenses and the poor. Health Aff (Millwood) 1986;5:138-45. |
|29.||Onoka CA, Onwujekwe OE, K Hanson K, Uzochukwu B. Measuring catastrophic health care expenditures in Nigeria: Implications for financial risk protection. The Consortium for Research on Equitable Health Systems research brief; 2010. [Online]. Available from: http://www.crehs.lshtm.ac.uk/downloads/publications/catastrophic_expenditure.pdf. [Accessed 2011 Jun 7]. |
|30.||Gilson L, Russel S, Buse K. The political economy of user fees with targeting: Developing equitable health financing policy. J Int Dev 1995;7:369-401. |
|31.||Russell S, Gilson L. User fee policies to promote health service access for the poor: A wolf in sheep′s clothing? Int J Health Serv 1997;27:359-79. |
|32.||Kivumbi GW, Kintu F. Exemptions and waivers from cost sharing: Ineffective safety nets in decentralized districts in Uganda. Health Policy Plan 2002;17:64-71. |
|33.||Onwujekwe OE, Uzochukwu BS, Obikeze EN, Okoronkwo I, Oconma OG, Onoka CA, et al. Investigating determinants of out-of-pocket spending and strategies for coping with payments for healthcare in southeast Nigeria. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:67. |
|34.||Kutzin J. Health insurance for the formal sector in Africa: "Yes, but…". In: Beattie A, Doherty J, Gilson L, Lambo E, Shaw P, editors. Sustainable health care financing in Southern Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1998. p. 61-73. |
|35.||National Health Insurance scheme. [Online]. Available from: http://www.nhis.gov.ng/. [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]. |
|36.||National Health Insurance scheme. NHIS Programs. [Online]. Available from: http://www.nhis.gov.ng/index.php?option=com_contentandview=articleandid=53andItemid=57. [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]. |
|37.||Kannegiesser L. National Health Insurance Scheme to boost generics market in Nigeria. [Online]. Available from: http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?Src=RSSanddocid=155485216. [Accessed 2011 Jun 11] |
|38.||World Bank (2008). World Bank - Administered Groba Launches Pre-paid Health Insurance Scheme in Lagos, Nigeria. [Online]. Available from: http://web.worldbank.org/....pagePK:2865066~piPK:2865079~theSitePK:368896,00.html. [Accessed 2011 Jun 19]. |
|39.||Ogbonnaya R. NHIS-Meeting Health Challenges Amidst Obstacles. Thisday. 4 th January 2010. [Online]. Available from: http://allafrica.com/stories/201001250876.html?page=2. [Accessed 2011 Jun 19]. |
|40.||Agba AM, Ushie EM, Osuchukwu NC. National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) and Employees′ Access to Healthcare Services in Cross River State, Nigeria. Glob J Hum Soc Sci 2010;10:9-16. |
|41.||Ibiwoye A, Adeleke IA. Does National Health Insurance Promote Access to Quality Health Care? Evidence from Nigeria. The Geneva Papers 2008;33:219-33. |
|42.||Mohammed S, Sambo MN, Dong H. Understanding client satisfaction with a health insurance scheme in Nigeria: Factors and enrollees experiences. Health Res Policy Syst 2011;9:20‡ . |
|43.||Sanusi RA, Awe AT. Perception of National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) by Healthcare consumers in Oyo State, Nigeria. Pak J Soc Sci 2009;6:48-53. |
|44.||Sekhri N, Savedoff W. Private Health Insurance Implication for Developing Countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. |
|45.||Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O, Soludo E, Nkoli E, Uguru N. The District Health System in Enugu State, Nigeria: An analysis of policy development and implementation. Consortium for Research on equitable health systems 2009. [Online]. Available from: http:/ / www.crehs.lshtm.ac.uk/downloads/publications/ District_health_system_in_Enugu_sta te.pdf. [Accessed 2011 Jul 2]. |
|46.||Carrin G, Waelkens MP, Criel B. Community-based health insurance in developing countries: A study of its contribution to the performance of health financing systems. Trop Med Int Health 2005;10:799-811. |
|47.||Ekman B. Community-based health insurance in low-income countries: A systematic review of the evidence. Health Policy Plan 2004;19:249-70. |
|48.||Jakab M, Krishnan C. Community involvement in health care financing: A survey of the literature on the impacts, strengths, and weaknesses. HNP Discussion Paper for the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2001. |
|49.||Jütting J. Do community-based health insurance schemes improve poor people′s access to health care? Evidence from rural Senegal. World Dev 2004;2:273-88. |
|50.||Adinma ED, Nwakoby BA, Adinma BD. Effect on healthcare delivery, of integrating maternal health services into a health insurance scheme. Nig Q J Hosp Med 2010;20:86-93. |
|51.||Ayeleso O. Lagos govt introduces community based insurance scheme. Nigerian Tribune. 13 th April 2011. [Online]. Available from: http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/insurance/20352-lagos-govt-introduces-community-based-insurance-scheme. [Accessed 2011 Jul 4]. |
|52.||Jimoh A. 50,000 to benefit from community health insurance scheme in Kwara. The Nation. 4 th June 2009. [Online]. Available from: http://thenationonlineng.net/web2/articles/5669/1/50000-to-benefit-from-community-health-insurance-scheme-in-Kwara/Page1.html. [Accessed 2011 Jul 4]. |
|53.||Onwujekwe O, Okereke E, Onoka C, Uzochukwu B, Kirigia J, Petu A. Willingness to pay for community-based health insurance in Nigeria: Do economic status and place of residence matter? Health Policy Plan 2010;25:155-61. |
|54.||Ataguba JE, Ichoku HE, Fonta WH. An estimation of the willingness to pay for community healthcare insurance scheme in rural Nigeria. A Research Report submitted to PEP Research Network, Department of Economics, University of Laval. [Online]. Available from: http://www.pep-net.org/fileadmin/medias/pdf/files_events/ataguba-pa.pdf. [Accessed 2010 Jul 6]. |
|55.||Ataguba JE. Community Health Insurance Scheme as a viable option for rural population in Nigeria. A Paper submitted to the Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE) Department of Economics, University of Oxford 2008.[Online]. Available from: http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2008-EDiA/papers/290-Ataguba.pdf. [Accessed 2011 Jul 6]. |
|56.||Onwujekwe O, Onoka C, Uzochukwu B, Okoli C, Obikeze E, Eze S. Is community-based health insurance an equitable strategy for paying for healthcare? Experiences from southeast Nigeria. Health Policy 2009;92:96-102 . |
|57.|| United Nations Development Programme. MDGs Needs Assessment and Financing Strategy for Nigeria: Policy Brief. [Online]. Available from: http://www.ng.undp.org/mdgs/policy_brief.pdf. [Accessed 2011 Jul 8]. |
|58.||National Planning Commission. The Official Development Assistance Policy 2008. Abuja: National Planning Commission; 2008. |
|59.||McGillivray M. Is Aid Effective? United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research; 2004. |
|60.||Cavagnero E, Lane C, Evansa DB, Carrina G. Development assistance for health: Should policy-makers worry about its macroeconomic impact? Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:864-70. |
|61.||Reid M. Nigeria still searching for the right formula. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:663-5. |
|62.||Federal Republic of Nigeria. National health bill. [Online]. Available from: http://www.unicef.org/nigeria/ng_publications_national_health_bill_2008.pdf. [Accessed 2011 Jul 9]. |