Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRathe, Magdalena
dc.contributor.authorHernández-Peña, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorPescetto, Claudia
dc.contributor.authorVan Mosseveld, Cornelis
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Maria Angélica Borges dos
dc.contributor.authorRivas, Laura
dc.date.accessioned2022
dc.date.available2022
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationRathe M, Hernández-Peña P, Pescetto C, Van Mosseveld C, Borges dos Santos MA and Rivas L. Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what matters. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e70. https://doi.org/10.26633/ RPSP.2022.70en_US
dc.identifier.issn1680 5348
dc.identifier.urihttps://iris.paho.org/handle/10665.2/56088
dc.description.abstract[ABSTRACT]. This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: (1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; (2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and (3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesRev Panam Salud Publica;46, jun. 2022
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo/*
dc.subjectPrimary Health Careen_US
dc.subjectHealth Expendituresen_US
dc.subjectMeasurements, Methods and Theoriesen_US
dc.subjectAtención Primaria de Saluden_US
dc.subjectGastos en Saluden_US
dc.subjectMediciones, Métodos y Teoríasen_US
dc.subjectAtenção Primária à Saúdeen_US
dc.subjectGastos em Saúdeen_US
dc.subjectMedidas, Métodos e Teoriasen_US
dc.titlePrimary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what mattersen_US
dc.typeJournal articlesen_US
dc.rights.holderPan American Health Organizationen_US
paho.articletypeSpecial reportsen_US
paho.isfeatured0en_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.26633/ RPSP.2022.70
paho.source.centercodeUS1.1en_US
paho.relation.languageVersion10665.2/56016es
paho.relation.languageVersion10665.2/55852es
dc.relation.ispartofjournalRevista Panamericana de Salud Públicaes_ES
dc.relation.ispartofjournalPan American Journal of Public Health


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO
This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO