Community Health Impact Coalition, New York, New York, USA.
Department of Global Health and Health System Design, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
J Glob Health. 2021 Feb 15;11:04010. doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.04010.
Despite the life-saving work they perform, community health workers (CHWs) have long been subject to global debate about their remuneration. There is now, however, an emerging consensus that CHWs should be paid. As the discussion evolves from to financially remunerate CHWs to , there is an urgent need to better understand the types of CHW payment models and their implications.
This study examines the legal framework on CHW compensation in five countries: Brazil, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa. In order to map the characteristics of each approach, a review of the regulatory framework governing CHW compensation in each country was undertaken. Law firms in each of the five countries were engaged to support the identification and interpretation of relevant legal documents. To guide the search and aid in the creation of uniform country profiles, a standardized set of questions was developed, covering: (i) legal requirements for CHW compensation, (ii) CHW compensation mechanisms, and (iii) CHW legal protections and benefits.
The five countries profiled represent possible archetypes for CHW compensation: Brazil (public), Ghana (volunteer-based), Nigeria (private), Rwanda (cooperatives with performance based incentives) and South Africa (hybrid public/private). Advantages and disadvantages of each model with respect to (i) CHWs, in terms of financial protection, and (ii) the health system, in terms of ease of implementation, are outlined.
While a strong legal framework does not necessarily translate into high-quality implementation of compensation practices, it is the first necessary step. Certain approaches to CHW compensation - particularly public-sector or models with public sector wage floors - best institutionalize recommended CHW protections. Political will and long-term financing often remain challenges; removing ecosystem barriers - such as multilateral and bilateral restrictions on the payment of salaries - can help governments institutionalize CHW payment.
尽管社区卫生工作者(CHW)在拯救生命方面发挥了重要作用,但他们的薪酬问题一直备受全球关注。然而,现在有一种共识认为应该为 CHW 支付薪酬。随着讨论从“为 CHW 提供经济报酬”到“如何支付薪酬”的转变,我们迫切需要更好地了解 CHW 薪酬模式的类型及其影响。
本研究考察了五个国家(巴西、加纳、尼日利亚、卢旺达和南非)的 CHW 薪酬法律框架。为了描绘每种方法的特点,对每个国家管理 CHW 薪酬的监管框架进行了审查。聘请了这五个国家的律师事务所来支持识别和解释相关法律文件。为了指导搜索并帮助创建统一的国家概况,制定了一套标准化问题,涵盖:(i)CHW 薪酬的法律要求,(ii)CHW 薪酬机制,以及(iii)CHW 的法律保护和福利。
所介绍的五个国家代表了 CHW 薪酬的可能典型模式:巴西(公共)、加纳(志愿)、尼日利亚(私人)、卢旺达(基于绩效激励的合作社)和南非(公私混合)。概述了每种模式在以下方面的优缺点:(i)CHW 方面,从财务保护的角度,(ii)卫生系统方面,从实施的容易程度的角度。
虽然强有力的法律框架不一定转化为高质量的薪酬实践实施,但它是第一步。某些 CHW 薪酬方法 - 特别是公共部门或具有公共部门工资底线的模式 - 最能将建议的 CHW 保护制度化。政治意愿和长期融资往往仍然是挑战;消除生态系统障碍 - 例如多边和双边对工资支付的限制 - 可以帮助政府将 CHW 薪酬制度化。