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.

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.

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.

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.

Primary care is often the weakest link in health systems despite its acknowledged central importance in promoting population's health at economical cost. A key reason for the lacunae is that both scholars and practitioners working on the subject typically underestimate the enormity of the task and the range of complementary measures required to build an effective primary care system. The objective of the paper is to highlight theoretical gaps and practical limitations to strengthening primary care. The challenges and difficulties are illustrated through a case study of China where primary care continues to struggle despite the government's strong political, financial and policy support in recent years. In this paper, we review the development of primary health care in China and how it is governed, provided, and financed, highlighting the gaps and misalignments that undermine its performance. We argue that governance deficiencies coupled with flawed financing and payments arrangements are major impediments to improving performance. China's experience offers valuable lessons for other governments seeking to strengthen primary health care.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the healthcare system and health financing in Bosnia and Herzegovina and recent trends in health technology assessment (HTA) placement in the system.

Methods: A short review of PubMed published literature has been conducted using key words related to reimbursement, HTA, and health policy. We also revised legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina published in Official Gazettes related to healthcare financing and organization.

Results: A deecentralized system in Bosnia and Herzegovina led to high differences in health policy. HTA has been recognized in legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it still has not been introduced in practice in full capacity. A small number of publications are found in PubMed treating these issues, but generally the problem of introduction of HTA in Bosnia and Herzegovina is lack of experts, as well as the political environment and education in this field.

Conclusions: HTA in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska has a short history because of a huge political impact in the decision-making process, decentralized system, and multiple decision makers in these regions. Challenges remain in assessments, in development of more transparent approaches in different areas of the health system in these regions, and in consistent application of appropriate standards especially in education of professionals who will provide establishment of HTA in the health system of The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska.

Objectives: To describe effects of health financing on providers' opinions and prescribing behavior in rural China.

Methods: A multi-stage sampling procedure was used to select county, township, and village health care facilities. A total of 1,064 health care providers in county, township, and village health care facilities in six counties in central China were randomly selected and surveyed during one week by written questionnaire.

Results: Patient's health financing systems (insurance or out-of-pocket payment), financing methods for health facilities (general budget or fee for service), and payment methods for providers (salary or bonus) influenced provider prescribing. Bonuses could improve the quality of health care, but could also be an incentive to prescribe more drugs or more expensive drugs and other services. The providers were of the view that patients' health financing and ability to pay were the main determinants of the type of treatment. Insured patients could have more access to expensive drugs, referred to specialized health care facilities, and have a higher cure rate (according to the doctor's opinion) for tuberculosis. Most of the clinical doctors said that they prescribed more expensive antibiotics for insured patients and changed prescriptions according to patients' demands, financial ability, and health financing systems in the treatment of some diseases, such as chronic bronchitis, tuberculosis, and hypertension.

Conclusion: The empirical data suggest that the main factor influencing provider prescribing behavior is the economic incentives in relation to health care financing for both health care providers and consumers.