Suchergebnisse

Every year, WHO produces the World health report: the 2005 report concentrated on maternal, neonatal and child health. But what is the value of these reports? Are they ritualistic publications designed to promote WHO, or are they worthy of proper discussion and debate? One would think that given the current crises in global health, the annual report of the UN's primary agency for health would be important. However, unless there is evidence that these reports are taken seriously, discussed and debated, and shown to have an effect, a conclusion might be drawn that they are largely insignificant. And that would consign WHO to a level of insignificance that it does not warrant. In this discussion of the 2005 report, I aim to provoke a response from both WHO and the international health community to demonstrate that the annual World health reports are meaningful. Furthermore, I suggest here that WHO shows its commitment to the recommendations of the 2005 report by monitoring how well recommendations have been taken forward.

The formulation of global health policy is political; and all institutions operating in the global health landscape are political. This is because policies and institutions inevitably represent certain values, reflect particular ideologies, and preferentially serve some interests over others. This may be expressed explicitly and consciously; or implicitly and unconsciously. But it's important to recognise the social and political dimension of global health policy. In some instances however, the politics of global health policy may be actively denied or obscured. This has been described in the development studies literature as a form of 'anti-politics'. In this article we describe four forms of anti-politics and consider their application to the global health sector.

Growing poverty, collapsing health care systems, the AIDS pandemic and the widening of health and health care inequities within and between countries all point to the limited success of global public health interventions over the past few decades. Notwithstanding the efforts of multilateral agencies such as the World Health Organization and the many existing contributions from the Canadian community of health professionals, this commentary argues and appeals for further action particularly in relation to the social and political impediments to better health and justice. Specifically, it calls for the development of a robust instrument to assess the impact of Canada as a whole on the state of global health, and to monitor the performance of key Canadian institutions. It is suggested that such an instrument would result in a process that enhances global citizenship and public accountability, and buttresses the efforts of civil society to forge trans-national links in pursuit of a fairer and healthier world. Public health professionals, by virtue of their social standing as well as the nature and tools of their discipline, should be at the forefront of such civic efforts.

BACKGROUND: The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which provides an international agreement on how to deliver aid, has recently been reviewed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Health sector aid effectiveness is important, given the volume of financial aid and the number of mechanisms through which health assistance is provided. Recognizing this, the international community created the International Health Partnership (IHP+), to apply the Paris Declaration to the health sector. This paper, which presents findings from an independent monitoring process (IHP+Results), makes a valuable contribution to the literature in the context of the recent 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Korea. METHODS: IHP+Results monitored commitments made under the IHP + using an agreed framework with twelve measures for IHP + Development Partners and ten for IHP + recipient country governments. Data were collected through self-administered survey tools. IHP+Results analyzed these data, using transparent criteria, to produce Scorecards as a means to highlight progress against commitments and thereby strengthen mutual accountability amongst IHP + signatories. RESULTS: There have been incremental improvements in the strengthening of national planning processes and principles around mutual accountability. There has also been progress in Development Partners aligning their support with national budgets. But there is a lack of progress in the use of countries' financial management and procurement systems, and in the integration of duplicative performance reporting frameworks and information systems. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: External, independent monitoring is potentially useful for strengthening accountability in health sector aid. While progress in strengthening country ownership, harmonisation and alignment seems evident, there are ongoing challenges. In spite of some useful findings, there are limitations with IHP + monitoring that need to be addressed. This is not surprising given the challenge of rigorously monitoring Development Partners across multiple recipient countries within complex global systems. The findings presented here suggest that the health sector is ahead of the game--in terms of having an established mechanism to promote alignment and harmonisation, and a relatively advanced monitoring framework and methods. But to capitalise on this, IHP + signatories should: a) reaffirm their commitments to the IHP+; b) actively embrace and participate in monitoring and evaluation processes; and c) strengthen in-country capacity notably amongst civil society organizations.

BACKGROUND: How to finance progress towards universal health coverage in low-income and middle-income countries is a subject of intense debate. We investigated how alternative tax systems affect the breadth, depth, and height of health system coverage. METHODS: We used cross-national longitudinal fixed effects models to assess the relationships between total and different types of tax revenue, health system coverage, and associated child and maternal health outcomes in 89 low-income and middle-income countries from 1995-2011. FINDINGS: Tax revenue was a major statistical determinant of progress towards universal health coverage. Each US$100 per capita per year of additional tax revenues corresponded to a yearly increase in government health spending of $9.86 (95% CI 3.92-15.8), adjusted for GDP per capita. This association was strong for taxes on capital gains, profits, and income ($16.7, 9.16 to 24.3), but not for consumption taxes on goods and services (-$4.37, -12.9 to 4.11). In countries with low tax revenues (<$1000 per capita per year), an additional $100 tax revenue per year substantially increased the proportion of births with a skilled attendant present by 6.74 percentage points (95% CI 0.87-12.6) and the extent of financial coverage by 11.4 percentage points (5.51-17.2). Consumption taxes, a more regressive form of taxation that might reduce the ability of the poor to afford essential goods, were associated with increased rates of post-neonatal mortality, infant mortality, and under-5 mortality rates. We did not detect these adverse associations with taxes on capital gains, profits, and income, which tend to be more progressive. INTERPRETATION: Increasing domestic tax revenues is integral to achieving universal health coverage, particularly in countries with low tax bases. Pro-poor taxes on profits and capital gains seem to support expanding health coverage without the adverse associations with health outcomes observed for higher consumption taxes. Progressive tax policies within a pro-poor framework might accelerate progress toward achieving major international health goals. FUNDING: Commission of the European Communities (FP7-DEMETRIQ), the European Union's HRES grants, and the Wellcome Trust.

The idea of a Framework Convention for Global Health (FCGH), using the treaty-making powers of the World Health Organization (WHO), has been promoted as an opportunity to advance global health equity and the right to health. The idea has promise, but needs more thought regarding risks, obstacles, and strategies. The reform of global health governance must be based on a robust analysis of the political economy out of which the drivers of inequality and the denial of the right to health arise. We argue for a broad-based campaign from which the need for more effective global health regulation (and a FCGH) would emerge as a common theme arising from myriad more specific claims. This type of campaign would respond to local needs, and would also be understood within a global, political, and economic perspective. Adapted from the source document.

The idea of a Framework Convention for Global Health (FCGH), using the treaty-making powers of the World Health Organization (WHO), has been promoted as an opportunity to advance global health equity and the right to health. The idea has promise, but needs more thought regarding risks, obstacles, and strategies. The reform of global health governance must be based on a robust analysis of the political economy out of which the drivers of inequality and the denial of the right to health arise. We argue for a broad-based campaign from which the need for more effective global health regulation (and a FCGH) would emerge as a common theme arising from myriad more specific claims. This type of campaign would respond to local needs, and would also be understood within a global, political, and economic perspective. Adapted from the source document.