The availability of limited funds from international agencies for the purchase of antiretroviral (ARV) treatment in developing countries presents challenges, especially in prioritizing who should receive therapy. Public input and the protection of human rights are crucial in making treatment programs equitable and accountable. By examining historical precedents of resource allocation, we aim to provoke and inform debate about current ARV programs.
Resource allocation and health financing
Which Patients First? Setting Priorities for Antiretroviral Therapy Where Resources Are Limited
July 2005, Vol 95, No. 7, American Journal of Public Health
White paper on China's foreign aid
The People's Republic of China: April 2011
In their white paper on foreign aid, the Chinese government notes that, currently, the environment for global development is not favourable. With the repercussions of the international financial crisis continuing to linger, global concerns such as climate change, food crisis, energy and resource security, and epidemic of diseases have brought new challenges to developing countries, aggravating the imbalance in the development of the global economy, and widening the gap between North and South, rich and poor. The international community should strengthen co-operation and jointly rise to the challenges facing development, according to the paper. Against this background, China has a long way to go in providing foreign aid. The Chinese government will make efforts to optimise the country's foreign aid structure, improve the quality of foreign aid, further increase recipient countries' capacity in independent development, and improve the pertinence and effectiveness of foreign aid. China further pledges to continue to promote South-South co-operation, gradually increase its foreign aid input on the basis of the continuous development of its economy and promote the realisation of the UN Millennium Development Goals.
White paper: National Health Insurance for South Africa
Department of Health, Republic of South Africa, December 2015
This white paper outlines South Africa’s path to universal health coverage over 14 years and proposes dramatic changes in the role of private medical aid among others. Released on the 10th of December 2015, the long awaited white paper begins by providing the background and justification of the country’s moves to join other countries like the Brazil, the United Kingdom and Thailand in introducing universal healthcare coverage. The document notes that healthcare in South Africa is comprised of a two-tiered system divided along socio-economic lines. The private medical aid sector is comprised of 83 medical aid schemes that fund healthcare services for about 16 percent of the population. The paper noted that spending through medical schemes in South Africa is the highest in the world and is six times higher than in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The paper argues that this two-tiered system has led to fragmented funding and risk pools in healthcare and posits that the creation of a National Health Insurance (NHI) will improve healthcare equity by combining fragmented private and public health funding pools and eliminating out-of-pocket payments.The paper notes that the NHI will ultimately deliver a comprehensive package of health services that include services such as rehabilitation and palliative care, mental health care including that related to substance abuse and maternal and child health care. The paper is made available to call for stakeholder feedback.
Whither EC Aid? WECA Compendium
Corre G (ed) and European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM): 2009
In 2005, the Paris Declaration formulated a number of challenges facing development cooperation. While the principles of the Declaration were broadly accepted, there seemed to be a lack of shared understanding of key underlying issues shaping the debate of EU aid effectiveness. This publication archives all the outputs generated through Whither EC Aid (WECA), from the Initial Discussion Note to the reports of the dozen roundtables held and the thematic Briefing Notes. A year after the adoption of the Accra Agenda for Action, it looks back on the perceptions of various group of stakeholders about the aid effectiveness agenda, to see to what extent the different points of view shared during the WECA process find an echo today in the international agenda on aid. The WECA Compendium is the final stage of a joint ECDPM-Action Aid project initiated in mid-2007.
Who benefits from health care in South Africa?
University of Cape Town Health Economics Unit Information Sheet
This information sheet presents evidence on the distribution of benefit of health services in South Africa. Within the public sector, the poor benefit relatively more than the rich from outpatient services at lower levels of care. The rich benefit considerably more than the poor from regional and central hospital services (both outpatient and inpatient services) and also benefit more from public sector inpatient services overall. The rich benefit far more from private sector services than the poor; the richest 40% of the population receive about 70% of the benefits of private outpatient services (from general practitioners, specialists, dentists and retail pharmacies) and nearly 80% of the benefits of inpatient care in private hospitals. Overall, health care benefits in South Africa are very ‘pro-rich’, with the richest 20% of the population receiving more than a third of total benefits while the poorest 20% receive less than 13% of the benefits, despite poor people bearing a much greater share of the burden of ill-health than rich people.
Who benefits from health care in Tanzania?
Health Economics Unit, University of Cape Town: 2010
According to this fact sheet, health care services overall in Tanzania benefit the rich more than the poor. In particular, the poorest 20% receive less benefit than they need. Benefits from outpatient and inpatient care in public hospitals, and private facilities are pro-rich, while benefits from faith-based facilities are generally evenly distributed with benefits being shared equally among people of all socio-economic groups, especially for inpatient care. Distance to referral facilities and cost are two factors that limit access to inpatient care for poorer groups, especially in rural areas. Poor quality of care in public facilities leads to a preference for private facilities among those who have the ability to pay. The greater availability of faith-based providers in rural areas and their flexible pricing policies leads to a more even share of benefits between rich and poor.
Who benefits from increased service utilisation? Examining the distributional effects of payment for performance in Tanzania
Binyaruka P; Robberstad B; Torsvik G; et al: International Journal for Equity in Health 17(14), doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0728-x, 2018
The authors examined pay for performance (P4P) effects on service utilisation across different population subgroups in Tanzania. About 3000 households were surveyed of women who delivered in the last 12 months prior to the interview from seven intervention and four comparison districts in January 2012 and a similar number of households in 13 months later. The household data were used to generate the population subgroups and to measure the incentivised service utilisation outcomes, with a focus on the institutional delivery rate and the uptake of antimalarials for pregnant women. P4P led to a significant increase in the rate of institutional deliveries among women in poorest and in middle wealth status households, but not among women in least poor households. The differential effect was marginally greater among women in the middle wealth households compared to women in the least poor households. The effect of P4P on institutional deliveries was also significantly higher among women in rural districts compared to women in urban districts, and among uninsured women than insured women. The effect of P4P on the uptake of antimalarials was equally distributed across population subgroups. The authors suggest that P4P can enhance equitable healthcare access and use especially when the demand-side barriers to access care such as user fees associated with drug purchase due to stock-outs have been reduced.
WHO estimates cost of reaching global health targets by 2030
World Health Organisation: WHO, Geneva, 2017
The SDG Health Price Tag estimates the costs and benefits of progressively expanding health services in order to reach 16 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) health targets in 67 low- and middle-income countries that account for 75% of the world’s population. The analysis shows that investments to expand services towards universal health coverage and the other SDG health targets could prevent 97 million premature deaths globally between now and 2030, and add as much as 8.4 years of life expectancy in some countries. While most countries can afford the investments needed, the poorest nations will need assistance to reach the targets. The SDG Health Price Tag models two scenarios: an “ambitious” scenario in which investments are sufficient for countries to attain the health targets in the SDGs by 2030, and a “progress” scenario in which countries get two thirds or more of the way to the targets. These investments would boost health spending as a proportion of gross domestic product across all 67 countries from an average of 5.6% to 7.5%. The global average for health spending as a proportion of GDP is 9.9%. Although higher spending does not necessarily translate to improved health, making the right investments at the right time can. The SDG Health Price Tag does not prescribe what countries should spend on health, but is intended as a tool to inform further research. It also highlights that achieving universal health coverage and the other health targets requires not only funding but political will and respect for human rights. WHO plans to update the estimates every five years and will include other health-related targets and diseases as more evidence becomes available.
WHO faces funding shortfall in 2011
Saez C and New W: Intellectual Property Watch, 17 January 2011
At the opening of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Executive Board meeting, held from 17–25 January 2011, there were calls for reform amid concerns about WHO’s finances for the year ahead. WHO Director-General, Margaret Chan, said that the United Nations agency is stretched thin due to a high level of demand impacting its efficiency in some areas, and that far-reaching reform is needed. She also warned against big corporations’ influence on policies, in her response to dissension over a pharmaceutical industry representative named by the WHO secretariat to join a new research and development funding working group. In her opening remarks, Chan underlined the financial shortfall of the WHO, which some later said could range between US$200 and $600 million dollars in the biennium.
WHO funders: Setting the agenda for global public health?
Knowledge Ecology International: 15 May 2010
This article supplies basic information on external funding for the World Health Organization's (WHO) activities. The total amount of 'specified' voluntary contributions for the period of 2008 to 2009 is around US$2.3 billion dollars. The Total General Fund for WHO, including specified voluntary contributions, 'core' voluntary contributions and contributions to WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Stop TB Partnership Global Drug Facility, stands at $2,744,594,186 dollars. Unofficial sources within WHO have confirmed that these voluntary contributions form around 80% of WHO’s operating budget. The main external funders have been identified as (in descending order): the United States of America, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Rotary International, Norway, Canada, the European Commission, the Global Alliance for Vaccine Immunization (GAVI) and Hoffmann-La Roche. WHO confirmed that Roche's $84 million figure relates to in-kind contributions following the H1N1 pandemic response.