Percentage of the organization's clients (patients) who received necessary health intervention(s) during the reporting period.
Organizations should footnote the expected time frame and clinical protocols that define a completed treatment, in addition to all other assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture the percentage of patients who received treatment that they needed during the reporting period.
The denominator of this calculation is the number of clients who needed treatment during the reporting period.
Examples of interventions to which this metric might apply include the following:
Healthcare Crude Coverage (PI3902) is an input into Healthcare Effective Coverage (PI7191) – crude coverage is a simple measure of percent of patients needing treatment who received it during the reporting period, while effective coverage includes a measure of quality. Both can be applied at a national, individual, or organizational level; investors are encouraged to apply them at the level of the investee company. While crude coverage is more widely used, experts are increasingly encouraging use of the quality-inclusive effective coverage measure. For further details on these measures and practical application in the investment context, see IADB’s "The Use of Effective Coverage in the Evaluation of Maternal and Child Health Programs: A Technical Note for the IDB’s Social Protection and Health” (https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/The-Use-of-Effective-Coverage-in-the-Evaluation-of-Maternal-and-Child-Health-Programs-A-Technical-Note-for-the-IDB-Social-Protection-and-Health-Division.pdf) and “Effective coverage as a new approach to health system performance assessment: a scoping review” (https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-3692-7). For background on the measure itself, see “Access, utilization, quality, and effective coverage: an integrated conceptual framework and measurement strategy” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953604006070?via%3Dihub).
In specific contexts, and based on evidence, this metric may serve as a proxy indicator of whether the outcome being sought by an investor or organization is occurring (the WHAT dimension of impact). For more on the alignment of IRIS metrics to the five dimensions of impact, see IRIS+ and the Five Dimensions of Impact (https://iris.thegiin.org/document/iris-and-the-five-dimensions/). No single metric is sufficient to understand an impact; rather, metrics are selected as a set across all dimensions of impact. When possible, the selection of metrics to measure and describe the five dimensions should be based on best practice and evidence.
June 2022 - IRIS v5.3 Released (current version)
Material change. Revisions to metric name, definition, calculation, and usage guidance.
January 2020 - IRIS v5.1 Released
No change.
May 2019 - IRIS v5.0 Released
Immaterial change. Formula slightly updated to clarify and simplify calculation. No material changes to formula.
March 2016 - IRIS v4.0 Released
Immaterial change. Minor revision to definition language in order to align consistency of metric with catalog's structure and style.
March 2014 - IRIS v3.0 Released
New metric. Health Intervention Completion Rate (PI3902) was developed via the IRIS Health Working Group.
IRIS Metrics Work Better in Sets
To use IRIS metrics—and the resulting data—to understand impact performance, IRIS metrics should be used and analyzed in generally accepted sets and according to well-defined objectives. IRIS+ gives you access to generally accepted Core Metrics Sets aligned to common Impact Themes and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).