Journal of health politics, policy and law
-
This article examines the role of international institutional actors in China's health policy process. Particular attention is paid to three major international institutional actors: the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. ⋯ By investing their resources and capabilities selectively and strategically, international institutions can change the preferences of government policy makers, move latent public health issues to the government's agenda, and affect the timing of government action and the content of policy design. Furthermore, the study suggests that different outcomes in the relationship between China's health policies and global health governance can be explained through the seriousness of the externalities China faces.
-
J Health Polit Policy Law · Feb 2015
Caught in the middle: the contested politics of HIV/AIDS and health policy in Vietnam.
Drawing on the changing landscape of responses to HIV in Vietnam, this article describes the key players and analyzes the relationships between global players and local interests, including both the omnipresent state and an emerging civil society presence. We discuss the critical importance of timing for policy intervention and the role of health policy in shaping the broader social terrain. ⋯ Furthermore, the looming specter of donor withdrawal and the very gradually emerging national ownership raise many questions about capacity for scale-up and sustainability of the significant achievements to date. Further monitoring and in-depth analysis of the Vietnamese responses to the HIV epidemic in the next few years or so, we contend, have the potential to provide unique insights into the challenges faced by developing countries caught in the complex webs of health politics and policies at both the global and the national levels.
-
J Health Polit Policy Law · Feb 2015
CommentOregon's medicaid transformation -- observations on organizational structure and strategy.
In the Point article, Steven W. Howard et al. argue that the Oregon Health Authority's coordinated care organizations (CCOs) are different from traditional Medicaid managed care organizations in ways designed to improve care coordination and transparency, incorporate greater collaborative governance and community accountability, and reform payment and delivery of care. Although the Point article notes specific challenges to implementing reforms, this Counterpoint article identifies the progress and successes of Oregon's CCOs in each of the aforementioned areas on the basis of empirical research, which suggests that CCOs appear to be viable innovations.
-
J Health Polit Policy Law · Feb 2015
Resistance and change: a multiple streams approach to understanding health policy making in Ghana.
Although much has been written on health policy making in developed countries, the same cannot be said of less developed countries, especially in Africa. Drawing largely on available historical and government records, newspaper publications, parliamentary Hansards, and published books and articles, this article uses John W. Kingdon's multiple streams framework to explain how the problem, politics, and policy streams converged for Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) to be passed into law in 2003. The article contends that a change in government in the 2000 general election opened a "policy window" for eventual policy change from "cash-and-carry" to the NHIS.
-
J Health Polit Policy Law · Feb 2015
Oregon's experiment in health care delivery and payment reform: coordinated care organizations replacing managed care.
To control Medicaid costs, improve quality, and drive community engagement, the Oregon Health Authority introduced a new system of coordinated care organizations (CCOs). While CCOs resemble traditional Medicaid managed care, they have differences that have been deliberately designed to improve care coordination, increase accountability, and incorporate greater community governance. ⋯ The CCO model faces several implementation challenges. If successful, it will provide improved health care delivery, better health outcomes, and overall savings.