title: Global health actors no longer in favor of user fees: a documentary study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Since the advent of health user fees in low- and middle-income countries in the 1980s, the discourse of global health actors (GHAs) has changed to the disadvantage of this type of healthcare financing mechanism. The aim of the study was to identify and analyze the stance of GHAs in the debate on user fees.
  
  
  METHODS
  We conducted documentary research using public documents published by and officially attributed to GHAs from 2005 to 2011. We categorized GHAs into four groups: intergovernmental organizations, international non-governmental organizations, government agencies, and working groups and networks. We then classified the GHAs according to their stance relative to the abolition of user fees, and conducted a thematic analysis of their discourse to understand the arguments used by each GHA to justify its stance.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified 56 GHAs, for which we analyzed 140 documents. Among them, 55% were in favor of the abolition of user fees or in favor of free care at the point of delivery. None of the GHAs stated that they were in favor of user fees; however, 30% did not take a stand. Only the World Bank declares that it is both in favor of user fees and in favor of free care at point of service. GHAs generally circumscribe their stance to specific populations (pregnant women, children under 5 years, etc.) or to specific health services (primary, basic, essential). Three types of arguments are used by GHAs to justify their stance: economic, moral and ethical, and pragmatic.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The principle of "user pays" seems to have fizzled. Production and dissemination of evidence, as well as certain advocacy networks, may have contributed to this change in discourse. However, GHAs should go a step further and translate their words into action, so that free healthcare at the point of delivery becomes a reality in low- and middle-income countries. They should provide technical and financial support to those countries that have chosen to implement user fee exemption policies, sometimes influenced by a GHA.
authors.forename: Emilie
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Robert
authors.forename: Valéry
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Ridde
mesh_terms: D003906:Developing Countries / Q000191:economics*; D005251:Fees, Medical; D014943:Global Health; D018166:Health Care Reform; D006297:Health Services Accessibility / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000191:economics*
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Apr 13;(4):CD009094
references.pmid: 21491414
references.citation: Public Health. 2010 Mar;124(3):159-66
references.pmid: 20227095
references.citation: Lancet. 2012 Sep 8;380(9845):859
references.pmid: 22959368
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2000 Sep;15(3):338-45
references.pmid: 11012410
references.citation: Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Jun;88(6):402
references.pmid: 20539847
references.citation: Lancet. 2009 Jun 13;373(9680):2078-81
references.pmid: 19362359
references.citation: BMJ. 2005 Oct 1;331(7519):762-5
references.pmid: 16195296
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Sep 8;358(9284):833-6
references.pmid: 11564510
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2011 Nov;26 Suppl 2:ii63-71
references.pmid: 22027921
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2000 Sep;51(6):859-69
references.pmid: 10972430
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2000 Sep;51(6):979-89
references.pmid: 10972440
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Feb;62(4):858-65
references.pmid: 16099574
references.citation: Int J Equity Health. 2009 Nov 12;8:39
references.pmid: 19909514
references.citation: Int J Equity Health. 2009 May 08;8:15
references.pmid: 19422726
references.citation: Ghana Med J. 2007 Sep;41(3):100-9
references.pmid: 18470327
references.citation: Reprod Health Matters. 2011 Nov;19(38):42-55
references.pmid: 22118141
references.citation: Sante Publique. 2004 Mar;16(1):37-51
references.pmid: 15185584
references.citation: BMC Public Health. 2012 Jun 08;12:289
references.pmid: 22521207
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2000 Sep;15(3):239-46
references.pmid: 11012397
references.citation: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(3):137-53
references.pmid: 17132029
references.citation: Lancet. 2011 Mar 5;377(9768):863-73
references.pmid: 21269682
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2011 Nov;26 Suppl 2:ii16-29
references.pmid: 22027916
references.citation: Int J Health Serv. 2011;41(1):175-84
references.pmid: 21319728
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2010 Apr 20;7(4):e1000226
references.pmid: 20422036
references.citation: Lancet. 2010 Jun 5;375(9730):2032-44
references.pmid: 20569843
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2010 Jan;7(1):e1000183
references.pmid: 20052277
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 1997 Dec;12(4):273-85
references.pmid: 10176263
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2010 Sep;25(5):384-92
references.pmid: 20360258
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2012 Mar;27 Suppl 1:i64-76
references.pmid: 22388502
references.citation: Lancet. 2012 Sep 8;380(9845):861-2
references.pmid: 22959371
references.citation: CMAJ. 2012 Feb 7;184(2):E125-6
references.pmid: 22231678
references.citation: Health Promot Int. 2002 Mar;17(1):89-98
references.pmid: 11847142
references.citation: Salud Publica Mex. 2011;53 Suppl 2:s85-95
references.pmid: 21877097