↓ Skip to main content

Examining the Financial Feasibility of Using a New Special Health Fund to Provide Universal Coverage for a Basic Maternal and Child Health Benefit Package in Nigeria

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Examining the Financial Feasibility of Using a New Special Health Fund to Provide Universal Coverage for a Basic Maternal and Child Health Benefit Package in Nigeria
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00200
Pubmed ID
Authors

Obinna Onwujekwe, Chima Onoka, Ifeoma Nwakoby, Hyacinth Ichoku, Benjamin Uzochukwu, Hong Wang

Abstract

Background: A special health fund was established in Nigeria in 2014 and is known as the Basic Health Care Provision Fund (BHCPF). The fund is equivalent to at least 1% of the Consolidated Revenue of the Federation. The BHCPF will provide additional revenue to fund primary healthcare services and help Nigeria to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). This fund is to be matched with counterpart funds from states and local government areas (LGAs), and is expected to provide at least a basic benefit health package that will cover maternal and child health (MCH) services for pregnant women and under-five children. Objective: To determine the financial feasibility of using the BHCPF to provide a minimum benefit package to cover all pregnant women and under-five children in Nigeria. Methods: The study focused on three states in Nigeria: Imo, Kaduna, and Niger. The feasibility analysis was performed using 3 scenarios but the main analysis was Scenario 1, which was based on the funding of drugs and consumables only. All the costs and revenues were in 2015 levels. The standard costs of a minimum benefit package for the different states were multiplied by the number of target beneficiaries to determine the amount required for the year. Financial feasibility is determined by the excess or otherwise of revenue over costs. Findings: It was found that in the best case funding scenario of using 95% of the CRF with 25% counterpart funding from states and LGAs, the entire available funds were not adequate to cover the benefit package for all the pregnant women and under-five children in the three states. The funds were also inadequate to cover the target beneficiaries that live below the poverty line in two of the states. Conclusion: The BHCPF is a good step toward providing essential MCH services, but the current level of funding will not assure UHC for all the target beneficiaries. However, the available funds should be used immediately to target priority mothers and children such as vulnerable groups, whilst sourcing for additional funds to ensure universal coverage of MCH services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 35 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 42 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,540,879
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,703
of 10,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,544
of 329,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#68
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.