We summarise key messages from the World Bank Report Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. A central lesson of the Report is that in decision-making on the path to Universal Health Coverage (UHC), procedural fairness matters alongside substantive fairness. Decision systems should be assessed using a complete conception of procedural fairness that embodies core commitments to impartial and equal consideration of interests and perspectives. These commitments demand that comprehensive information is gathered and disclosed and that justifications for policies are publicly debated; that participation in decision-making is enabled; and that these characteristics of the decision system are institutionalised rather than up to the good will of decision-makers. Procedural fairness can improve equity in outcomes, raise legitimacy and trust, and can help make reforms last. While improving procedural fairness can be costly and there are barriers to achieving it, the range of instruments that countries at varying levels of income and institutional capacity have used with some success shows that, in many contexts, advances in procedural fairness in health financing are possible and worthwhile.

Although the fair financing report, ‘Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage’, has many sage things to say about democratic deliberative processes, its title belies its content: the report does not offer any assessment of processes for financing universal health coverage. What it does instead is scrutinise processes for deciding how to finance universal health coverage without any linkage to substantive questions concerning financing, and, moreover, the discussion is not narrowly focused on fairness.

This article is a critique of a report, Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. The report proposes a framework that is meant to improve procedural fairness and how decisions in financing of health care can be fairer. The author of this article argues that while procedural fairness and the proposed framework are an important step in improving equity in health sector financing, the report falls short on several aspects of achieving the set objectives. First, the report does not place emphasis on the role of civic education as an important component of public education building on access to information. Therefore, there should be caution in assuming that improved dissemination of information will lead to increased civic action. Secondly, the author proposes that the report include principles that should guide how decisions are made in public deliberations when consensus cannot be achieved. Lastly, the framework in the report does not speak to the complexity of the trade-offs that have to be made between health and other sectors. The author argues that a key area of deliberations in health financing is understanding how practitioners in the sector can argue for better funding against other competing sector such as education and agriculture while still finding complementarities.

The policy-making process for health financing in most places lacks equity, failing to adequately consider the voices of ordinary citizens, residents, and especially those facing significant disadvantage. Procedural fairness is about addressing this imbalance, which requires a recalibration of power dynamics, ensuring that decision-making incorporates a more diverse range of perspectives. In this comment, we highlight the important contributions made by the report ‘Open and inclusive: Fair processes for financing universal health coverage’ in furthering the understanding and importance of procedural fairness in health financing decision-making especially as it relates to the three sub-functions of financing – revenue raising, pooling, and purchasing. We also argue for the importance of conceptual clarity – especially as to the added value of procedural fairness vis-à-vis accountability – and critically review the proposed framework for procedural fairness, emphasising the role of voice as the linchpin to advancing equity in influence.

The framework presented in the World Bank report Open and Inclusive: Fair processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage effectively connects proposed decision-making principles with practical examples that country governments can use to pursue greater fairness. In this commentary, we consider the suggestion that international development partners might use the report's criteria to examine their own processes. We consider what the report's primary Fair Process principles – equality, impartiality and consistency – imply for development partners. Specifically, we address two questions in turn: (i) how relevant the Fair Processes report is to development assistance for health; (ii) if it is deemed relevant, what practical implications does the report have for how aid works? We address the second question by briefly applying the framework to a particular global health initiative, namely the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Our analysis suggests that development partners' additional sets of accountabilities, particularly linked to funding sources, may pose more fundamental challenges to impartiality than to equality and consistency in decision-making processes. A question inviting further examination, then, is how development partners can redesign their processes to optimise impartiality given institutional constraints that bind them independently of the populations they purport to serve.

In response to our critics, we clarify and defend key ideas in the report Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. First, we argue that procedural fairness has greater value than Dan Hausman allows. Second, we argue that the Report aligns with John Kinuthia's view that a knowledgeable public and a capable civil society, alongside good facilitation, are important for effective public deliberation. Moreover, we agree with Kinuthia that the Report's framework for procedural fairness applies not merely within the health sector, but also to the wider budget process. Third, we argue that while Dheepa Rajan and Benjamin Rouffy-Ly are right that robust processes for equal participation are often central to a fair process, sometimes improvements in other aspects of procedural fairness, such as transparency, can take priority over strengthening participation. Fourth, while we welcome Sara Bennett and Maria Merritt's fascinating use of the Report's principles of procedural fairness to assess the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, we argue that their application of the Report's principle of equality to development partners' decision-making requires further justification.

Physician databases constitute an essential component of health workforce planning. However, while some countries have established functioning national physician databases, others have failed to do so. We compared the healthcare systems of two technologically and economically developed countries, Canada and Israel, which represent cases of respective success and failure in establishing physician databases. A comparative analysis was conducted using a historical-institutionalist approach to examine contemporary health policy outcomes. White papers, studies on healthcare human resources, and reports by professional committees were examined to explore the aims, interests, positions, and actions of stakeholders. In Canada, state–medical profession cooperation, deep-rooted in a longstanding regulatory bargain between the two parties, has facilitated the creation and management of physician databases, albeit limited and in need of urgent improvement, on national and jurisdictional levels. The lack of such regulatory arrangement coupled with enduring conflicted relations between stakeholders due to particular historical developments have hindered the development of an Israeli equivalent database so far. Finally, health policy outcomes may be explained against the backdrop of broader political, governance, and organisational contexts. How medical organisations respond to governmental healthcare initiatives is heavily influenced by their institutional position vis-à-vis the state, shaped by historical processes and regulatory arrangements.

In Ukraine, patients and their family members face numerous barriers to health care services. In response, they use coping strategies, that are manifold and complex activities aimed at overcoming these barriers, the financial burden of the treatment, and the poor quality of health care services. These activities include formal and informal practices. Based on representative survey data from 2015 (N = 2,022), we identify patterns in the use of coping strategies, specific coping strategies used to secure good quality consultation and treatment, and analyse opinions and actions towards coping practices. We further analyse the factors associated with the last experience of coping and look at patterns of connection building. We find that the chances of using both money and connection as a coping strategy are higher for people with incomplete higher and highest levels of education. The size of this effect increases with the level of education. Older people, people with better health, and people with a higher opinion of the state use informal practices less, while women are more active in developing connections. The closer the relationship is with a medical doctor, the higher is the chance that such connection will be used in case of health service consumption.