Resource allocation and health financing

At the 2011 summit in Beijing, China, leaders of the BRICS countries (Brazil, India, China and South Africa) confirmed that public health is an essential element for social and economic development and should be reflected accordingly in national and international policies. Furthermore, they agreed to establish and encourage a global health agenda for universal access to affordable medicines and health commodities. However, achieving universal coverage will only be achieved if formal assessment becomes an acceptable key component, the author of this article argues. The BRICS development bank will require evidence of value for money to invest in health. The current approach asserts that health technology assessments have a major role in health services development. One criticism of this approach has been that an emphasis on efficiency means that equity and fairness are sacrificed. However, there are now initiatives in place that address these concerns, the author argues, and new approaches to value-based prioritisation are being developed to respond to concerns expressed about a health economic perspective, particularly by those advocating a rights-based approach.

This is a short commentary on Namibia's 2008 Budget by a Namibian health professional with regard to the Millenium Development Goals. A deep look at the budget reveals some problematic areas, namely that the Minister of Health once more missed the opportunity to allocate adequate resources to health. She again missed the Abuja target by 5%, which by international consensus, considers a 15% government budget allocation to health as satisfactory. Although it was said that the health budget has been increased by 26%, the total health and social services allocation is still standing at 10.08% of the overall Government budget for the 2008-09 financial year. This is a missed opportunity, given that the Minister had enough cash for a fair distribution to national priorities, health included.

In 2001, the World Health Organisation’s Commission for Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) released its report, ‘Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in health for economic development’, urging the international community to invest substantially in health as a means of promoting development. According to this article, many observers credit the report as one of the key drivers for successfully raising the profile of global health in the international arena and promoting the long-neglected link between health and wealth. But reports on the success of the Commission are mixed. Howard Stein of the University of Michigan criticises the Commission for failing to mention the causes of poverty and poor health, including the gross inequities of the global economy caused by neoliberalism, suggesting that this is a consequence of the fact that most Commission members supported neoliberal economic policies at the time. Although at least 60 countries now offer a basic health care package, the concept failed to be supported by external funders, who continue to fund specific vertical interventions rather than an integral set of services. The Commission expected the pharmaceutical industry to voluntarily lower prices, which the authors argue has not happened.

Is prioritising services for the poorest and most marginalised more effective and cost effective than mainstream approaches? In this study, researchers addressed this question by comparing the cost-effectiveness in terms of child deaths and stunting events averted between two approaches: an equity-focused approach that prioritises the most deprived communities, and a mainstream approach that is representative of current strategies. Results showed that, with the same level of investment, disproportionately higher effects are possible by prioritising the poorest and most marginalised populations, for averting both child mortality and stunting. This suggests that an equity-focused approach offers higher cost-effectiveness than mainstream approaches, while reducing inequities in effective intervention coverage, health outcomes, and out-of-pocket spending between the most and least deprived groups and geographic areas within countries. Further research is needed to address gaps in the researchers’ evidence base. They call for increasing prioritisation of the most deprived communities and the increased use of community-based interventions.