ASIA PACIFIC OBSERVATORY ON HEALTH POLICIES AND SYSTEMS Presentation to Asia Health Policy Program Palo Alto, CA 20 October 2011

Background  Long history of trying to create an Asia Observatory  Recent concerted effort by WHO, World Bank and ADB to advance the process

Key Characteristics of the APO  1. Builds upon the 13-year highly successful experience of the European Observatory (EO)* *http://www.euro.who.int/en/home/projects/observatory

Key Characteristics of the APO  2. Shared responsibility and ownership  All partners share ownership of the APO, its identity and products  Thus, no entity or group of entities “owns” the Observatory

Key Characteristics of the APO— What it will not do  3. Will not substitute for routine activities of the individual partners  Not a general purpose research organization investigating any and all health topics of interest

Key Characteristics of the APO— What it will do  4 . Be a bridge between researchers and decision-makers to serve the policy needs of countries. Undertake comparative research on country health systems. Three main activities:  HiTs ( in-depth profiles of health systems and policies, using a standardized template, adapted to the region)  Thematic studies emerging out of comparative analyses  Dissemination of the above

Health Systems in Transition (HiTs)  HiTs are the “bread and butter” observatory work. They can be used to:  Examine different approaches to the organization, financing and delivery of health services and the role of key health system actors;  Describe the institutional framework for and process, content and implementation of policy;  Highlight challenges and areas requiring more detailed analysis;

HiTs continued

 Provide a tool for disseminating information on health systems;  Facilitate the exchange of reform experiences across countries  Establish a baseline for assessing the impact of reforms; and  Inform comparative analysis.

Underlying Principles  Consensus that APO can only succeed if there is:  An independent, non-politicized research process underpinned by strong quality assurance mechanisms  Financial sustainability (must cover the costs of doing business)

APO Governance  Tripartite structure comprising a:  Steering Committee  Research Hubs and a Research Advisory Group  Secretariat

Governance— Steering Committee  Guides the strategic direction of the Observatory, monitoring the implementation of its work plan and the quality of its products. Operates on the basis of consensus  Annual membership fee of US$100,000

Governance— Research Hubs  Provide technical support and leadership and help to build capacity in country-based research teams, carry out studies directly, and engage with existing networks active in health systems research  Three Research Hubs currently being considered

Governance— Research Advisory Group  A core team of 4-5 researchers, working in their personal capacity, who have the dual function of: (a) advising on the process of quality control for Observatory research products, and (b) providing input on the strategic direction of the Observatory’s research agenda.

Governance— Secretariat  Responsible for the day-to-day management of the Observatory and its program of research. Run in a spirit of co-operation and partnership, with the Steering Committee guiding its work.

 Initially located in WPRO Office in Manila

Current Steering Committee Membership  Countries: Hong Kong SAR, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand  Organizations: Asian Development Bank, AusAid, The World Bank, WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific Regional Offices

Current Status

 APO formally established in Hong Kong in June 2011  Covers most Asia Pacific countries  Research Hubs and RAG composition being decided  Director position recently advertised

Future Challenges

1.

Politics, politics, and politics 2.

Quality assurance 3.

Comparable data

Future Challenges continued

4.

Bridging the gap between evidence and policy—  “policy dialogue” How to populate the space between evidence and policy?

Future Challenges continued

Bridging the gap continued-  Evidence side often does not have the entry point (or skills) to introduce evidence into policy making  Key variables:  Evidence quality and accessibility/interpretability  Trust  Timeliness

Concluding Remarks—Key Themes

 Comparative, transparent and peer reviewed  Observatory style of working--researchers focused on policy relevance and involved in dissemination and policy engagement