Page 66 - GHES-3-2
P. 66

Global Health Economics and
            Sustainability
                                                                         Implementation of payment exemption in Cameroon



            Table 4. Determinants of bad practices vis‑à‑vis the direct payment exemption policy according to staff knowledge: Bivariate
            analysis
            Explanatory                    Fee waiver policy practice        OR (95% CI)               p‑value
            variables                    Bad                Good

                                      (n=51)              (n=113)
            Heard about the UFE
             Yes                      41 (80.39)          105 (92.92)        1
             No                       10 (19.61)          8 (7.08)           3.17 (1.17 – 8.85)        0.023*
            Information channel
             Training                 36 (83.72)          95 (89.62)         1
             Posters/media            7 (16.28)           11 (10.38)         1.66 (0.57 – 4.56)        0.33
            Knowledge of the definition of UFE HIV
             Yes                      44 (86.27)          103 (91.15)        1
             No                       7 (13.73)           10 (8.85)          1.62 (0.55 – 4.50)        0.356
            Knowledge of free medical services
             Yes                      48 (94.12)          112 (99.12)        1
             No                       3 (5.88)            1 (0.88)           1.62 (0.86 – 142.19)      0.097
            Possession of guidebooks on the UFE policy
             Yes                      18 (35.29)          78 (69.03)         1
             No                       33 (64.71)          35 (30.97)         4.20 (2.11 – 8.62)        <0.001***
            Existence of a UFE focal point in the health facility
             Yes                      17 (33.33)          73 (65.18)         1
             No                       34 (66.67)          39 (34.82)         3.74 (1.88 – 7.67)        <0.001***
            Opinion on the UFE policy
             Useful                   46 (90.2)           113 (100)          1
             Useless                  5 (9.8)             0 (0.0)            3e+07 (1.6e – 41-NA)      0.987
            Improved quality of care for PLHIV after UFE project implementation
             Yes                      35 (68.63)          105 (92.92)        1
             No                       16 (31.37)          8 (6.93)           6.85 (2.69 – 19.13)       <0.001***
            Implementation of the UFE project in the health facility
             Totally                  12 (23.53)          68 (60.18)         1
             Partially                14 (47.06)          34 (30.09)         4.12 (1.86 – 9.50)        <0.001***
             Not at all               15 (29.41)          11 (9.73)          7.72 (2.92 – 21.51)       <0.001***
            Improved patient retention after UFE policy implementation in your health facility
             Yes                      31 (60.78)          99 (87.61)         1
             No                       20 (39.22)          14 (12.39)         4.51 (2.06 – 10.17)       <0.001***
            Provision of free services for patients in the health facility
             Yes                      48 (94.12)          112 (99.12)        1
             No                       3 (5.88)            1 (0.88)           1.3 (0.72 – 2.11)         0.984
            Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus; OR: Odds ratio; UFE: User fees elimination.

            and have greater decision-making power about granting   credibility with other staff members. Thus, it becomes
            exemptions. Thus, they are favorably positioned to abuse   easier  for them to  legitimize  non-compliant practices.
            the system; notably, they can grant unjustified exemptions   Therefore, it is essential to target these key groups in raising
            to certain patients. Moreover, their levels of training and   awareness and escalating control measures to improve the
            medical expertise grant them considerable influence and   honest application of the exemption policy.



            Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025)                         58                       https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.4078
   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71