1 / 9

Accountability for Reasonableness

Accountability for Reasonableness. A priority setting concept Is it useful for community monitoring under severe resource constraints? By Jens Byskov for the CONVENING ON COMMUNITY MONITORING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN HEALTH July 2011. Focus on legitimacy & fairness.

fawzi
Download Presentation

Accountability for Reasonableness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accountability for Reasonableness A priority setting concept Is it useful for community monitoring under severe resource constraints? By Jens Byskov for the CONVENING ON COMMUNITY MONITORING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN HEALTH July 2011

  2. Focus on legitimacy & fairness • Legitimacy: accepted moral authority of decision makers • Fairness: decisions are morally acceptable because decision making process is morally acceptable

  3. The problem continued • Lack of legitimacy and fairness leads to • Unclear priorities • Unrealistic priorities • Non – implementable priorities • Demotivation • Distrust • Waste of resources • Reduced health care • Reduced health

  4. A concept and approach Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) • Operationalizes the concept of fairness in specific contexts • Improves legitimacy of priorities set, and therefore greater ”buy-in” and implementation

  5. ‘Accountability for reasonableness’(AFR) – 4 conditions • Relevance:decisions based on reasons upon which stakeholders can agree • Publicity:reasons publicly accessible • Revision (Appeals): quality improvement mechanism for challenging/revising reasons • Leadership (Enforcement): to ensure the 3 conditions are met aiming for public accountability Daniels & Sabin, 1997

  6. Elaborating conditions • Relevance • Reasons and criteria built upon value-choices • Multi-stakeholder and user involvement • Publicity • Transparency – a process • Proactive dissemination including reasons • Revision/Appeals • Responsiveness and dispute resolution • Sustainable decisions • Leadership/Enforcement • Ensure continuous application of conditions 1-3 • Monitor with other providers and users/the public/communities – mutual accountability • Monitor service output, health outcomes and trust

  7. An application REsponse to Accountability priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT) Applies AFR in a district in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia • A case study and action research (participatory) design. • Assesses the need, process, acceptability and use • Discusses consequences for services (output), their results (outcomes) and their health and disease effect (impact).

  8. Main focus / outcome • Evaluate effect of improved priority setting on indicators for • Quality • Equity • Trust After 5 years all want to continue • Kenya – Motivation/the new counties • Tanzania – Acceptance, change, scale up • Zambia – Outcomes, change and outreach

  9. Priority Setting Narrowing the Democratic Deficit • Make ‘private’ decisions public • Iterative - improves over time • Social Policy learning • Power blind?

More Related