Box 1 Ethiopian EHSP

What is the EHSP, and why was the revision needed?

The government of Ethiopia is committed to achieving universal health coverage. Universal health coverage means that every person—no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have—should be able to access quality health services without financial hardship.

However, it is impossible to progress toward universal health coverage without clearly identifying the most pressing health problems and what interventions are appropriate to address those health problems efficiently and equitably.

Therefore, defining the essential health services package is the primary step to use the available resources to prioritize the most critical interventions based on cost, equity, financial risk protection, and public interest (community concern) justifications.

An EHSP can be defined as the package of services that the government provides or is aspiring to provide to its citizens equitably.

The Ethiopian EHSP identified the most pressing health challenges and interventions deemed appropriate, affordable, and equitable to address health problems.

Goal of the EHSP

To provide access to quality health services for all Ethiopians with full financial risk protection regardless of age, ability to pay, economic status, and residence.

Objectives of the EHSP

To reduce the high burden of disease in Ethiopia by making available affordable, high-priority interventions.

To protect the population against catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditures and provide full financial risk protection.

To increase equitable access to health services and interventions.

To increase the efficiency of the health system.

To increase public participation and transparency in decision-making in the health sector.

The revision process

The revision process was conducted from May 2018–November 2019.

As recommended by the World Health Organization for designing health benefits packages, the revision was conducted using the best available evidence (data), was based on extensive consultation with all stakeholders (dialogue), and was conducted through an open, transparent, and democratic decision-making process (decision).

Several consultations have been held with public representatives and professional association experts actively participating in the revision process.

Interventions were compared based on seven criteria: disease burden, cost effectiveness, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, public acceptability, and political acceptability.