Free and Public
Currently Browsing: Public sector

Private sector heterogeneity and Universal Health Coverage By Dr. Anuj Kapilashrami, Lecturer in Global Public Health, University of Edinburgh

Universal Health Coverage has risen quickly to the top of the global health policy agenda, yet debates around how best to deliver healthcare to achieve UHC – and the role of the private sector -are often unhelpfully polarised.

This blog attempts at ‘setting the scene’ as discussed in a joint session by Oxfam and the Global Public Health Unit of the University of Edinburgh last year in the International Conference on Public Policy in Milan. The blog introduces key concept of Public Private Partnerships (PPP), its rising salience and the basic premise it rests on, and discusses the nature of private sector and issues relevant to achieving the UHC goals.

 The rhetoric of public private mix:

Public private partnership has emerged as key priority within the framework of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), as a gateway to improved access to services -even if in its most narrow sense of expanding coverage. There has been a sharp rise in partnerships with the private sector – not only in Europe and other high income countries, but increasingly in Low and Middle income countries (LMIC) – to deliver health care infrastructure, clinical and non-clinical services, technology systems, and manage facilities.

Interactions between the public and the private sector are not new, especially in LMICs where health systems are historically characterised as pluralist and hybrid. However the ascendency of private sector in the last two decades can be attributed to the rise of the Public Private Partnerships paradigm; a post 1990s development. Such paradigm proposes a re-evaluation of the structure and function of government in relation to delivery of public services based on the assumption that hierarchical bureaucracy- the organisational form of the public delivery system is inefficient and that introduction of market mechanisms can substantially enhance its efficiency (Osborne 2000, Mills 1995).

Broadly guided by the theoretical foundations of ‘new public management’, such paradigm is concerned with injecting ‘business like practices’ into public sector agencies (Shaw 1999, 2004). Advocates for this model also argue that by increased diversity of provision, partnership initiatives secure better quality infrastructure and services at ‘optimal’ cost and risk allocation (Kwak et al 2009, Roehrich et al 2014). Overall, the literature often portrays PPPs as win-win arrangements in weak, under-resourced and deficient public systems.

However, while the partnership agenda gains currency in health (and other public) policy debates, important gaps remain in its understandings, both conceptual and empirical, and practitioner comprehension of what constitutes the private sector.

First, there is ambiguity in defining the ‘private’. Without adequate differentiation of the nature, scale and scope of the private sector engaged, evidence from one experiment involving a certain private entity on a particular health problem is used selectively to justify and legitimise involvement of ‘private’ sector at large. This is clear in the mix-up between profit making private sector and non-profit organisations.

Non-profit, non-governmental and faith based organisations including networks of people affected by particular health problems, mainly HIV, are gaining prominence. Their role in health care, especially service delivery, has significantly diversified in recent years and is no longer restricted to undertaking outreach work in family planning and reproductive health services for governments. Partnering with well-established faith based organisations in Africa or NGO managing primary health centres in India have distinct implications for health systems and governance than posed by engaging for-profit private sector such as health insurance companies.

The commercial sector on the other hand is very diverse and heterogeneous: including practitioners (of mainstream and traditional medicine), pharmacies, hospitals, pharma and medical devices companies, products manufacturers, suppliers and retailers, as well as other actors in the non-health sector such as insurance companies. On one end of the spectrum, there are informal sector, often under qualified providers offering the only source of care (or drugs) available to certain populations. On the other end there are large corporate (national or multinational) hospitals at the receiving end of substantial investments from international agencies such as the International Finance Corporation, multinational companies as well as State subsidies through arrangements involving their empanelment in national and state health insurance schemes. In the middle are small scale private enterprises such as clinics, nursing homes, drug vendors and pharmacies or larger non-health sector corporations, e.g. cement, automobile companies establishing/running anti-retroviral treatment centres (and other facilities) through partnerships with public sector under national disease control programmes.

Subsuming such widely differing arrangements under a common label of ‘public private partnerships’ obscures important distinctions between interactions and creates a false sense of novelty of the PPP approach. Engaging these diverse actors has distinct implications (and raises different concerns) for achievement of UHC goals. Distinguishing these will allow for a better assessment of their real scope and ability (or inability) to contribute to UHC goals, and explain variation in practice based on separation of ownership and risk bearing between the public and private.

Second, there is significant variation in the meaning and practice of partnerships. The term is used loosely to refer to almost any kind of arrangement (including ‘contracting in’) between the ‘private’ and the ‘public’. Partnering has extended to describe a wide range of activities involving an ever-expanding web of relationships between donors, governments, NGOs, community members, and corporate and business houses and their representatives (Kapilashrami 2010). Further, while there is a reasonably sized body of  literature (empirical and conceptual) describing and evaluating global health PPPs (likes of the Global Fund to fight AIDS TB and Malaria, Roll back malaria, GAIN) and their country level interactions, a huge gap exists in understandings of PPPs at national and sub-national level.

Third, there are significant gaps in understanding the dynamics of PPP arrangements: these are not discrete models of interaction between one public, one defined private entity for example insurance companies or pharmacies. These are often complex incremental in nature and need to be seen in the changing political economy of health systems. This is evident from state partnerships that engage insurance companies and other private entities as third party administrators managing purchasing of care through provisions that engage private facilities to provide services at primary, secondary, tertiary level.

Subject to the nature of private sector agency partnered with and the design/ nature of partnership, important questions arise for achieving the goals of UHC.

These include:

  • Increased competition and dual system of ‘free’ and ‘paid’ services as observed in private sector partnerships in disease control programmes whereby corporate centres charged for services (HIV testing, laboratory tests and CD4 counts) offered free in public hospitals (Kapilashrami and McPake 2012). This affects affordability and access, and leads to opportunistic behaviour and reduced accountability of providers.
  • Problems of quality among untrained and unregulated informal providers and regulatory infringements by drug vendors and pharmacies; irrational prescriptions and unnecessary investigations and surgical procedures (Garg et al 2014, Duggal et al. 2013)
  • Concerns around affordability resulting from cost escalation and diversion of costs from primary level care which have negative implications for women as service users and carers (Oxfam 2013)
  • Changes in governance and customary relationships between institutions, providers and users as State becomes financier and guarantor of services purchased from third parties. Such complex arrangement undermines traditional accountability systems and obscures users understanding of their entitlements to care.

Partnership with private sector is portrayed as win-win arrangements (Sanbrailo 2013). However, such projections disregard the heterogeneity in the private sector, and lack any systematic assessments of their effects, pathways through which health sector goals are influenced, and any uncertainties and in-coherences arising from their operations. Thus, careful and comprehensive assessment of the nature, scale and scope of these initiatives, alongside their underlying assumptions is an undeniable necessity for progressing the UHC agenda.

References

Kapilashrami A. and McPake B. (2012). Editor’s Choice:Transforming governance or reinforcing hierarchies and competition: examining the public and hidden transcripts of the Global Health initiatives and HIV in India. Health Policy Plan. 28(6):626-635

Kapilashrami A. (2010) Public private partnerships: The discourse, the practice and the system-wide effects of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. A case of HIV management in India. PhD Thesis. Queen Margaret University, UK

Kwak, Y. H., Chih, Y., & Ibbs, C. W. (2009). Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private partnerships for infrastructure development. California Management Review, 51(2), 51-78

Osborne SP (ed). 2000. Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective. Routledge: London

Roehrich, J., Lewis, M. K., & George, G. (2014). Are Public-Private Partnerships a Healthy Option? A Systematic Literature Review of “Constructive” Partnerships between Public and Private Actors

Oxfam (2013) Universal health Coverage: Why health insurance schemes are leaving the poor behind

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp176-universal-health-coverage-091013-en_.pdf

Sanbrailo, J. (2013). Public-Private Partnerships: A Win-Win Solution. Blog on Huffington Post. 09/25/2013

Shaw, R. P. (2004). New Trends in Public Sector Management in Health: applications in developed and developing countries

Share

When wealth buys health, Niramaya may be the answer by Pallavi Gupta, Health Programme Coordinator, Oxfam India

I grew up learning that “Health is Wealth”. But today it seems that it is the other way round: one needs a substantial amount of Wealth to buy Health.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution grants all Indians the Right to Life. Yet that right cannot become a reality when a quarter of the country’s population does not seek medical treatment because they cannot afford it and 65% do not have access to the medicines they need. India has one of the highest private out-of-pocket expenditures on healthcare at almost 70%[1]. Two-thirds of the out-of-pocket expenditure is on medicines alone[2]. Therefore, providing free medicines in public facilities can have a great impact on people’s healthcare costs and health outcomes.

Historically government hospitals were supposed to provide free medicines along with free consultation. Yet over the years buying medicines from private pharmacies has become almost a norm. Availability of medicines in public hospitals has been very limited over the last couple of decades[3]. To fix this problem, many state governments have announced their own free medicines scheme and set up state owned corporations to operationalise it. Tamil Nadu set up its corporation in 1995 to ensure availability of all essential medicines in the government medical institutions throughout the State.

Other states like Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh followed suit. Rajasthan was the first of the Empowered Action Group of states[4] to roll it out successfully, thus inspiring other states in similar fiscal health. Evidence from Rajasthan illustrates that the availability of free medicines at public health facilities increases their utilization and is an important step towards strengthening the public health system.

In this pursuit, Government of Odisha increased its budget allocation for medicines to more than USD 15 million in 2012-13 and set up its state corporation for the purpose. Going a step further the government announced a specific free medicines scheme in the state called the “Niramaya Yojana” in April 2015 and increased the budget allocation to USD 32 million for the year 2014-15[5]. The increase is comparable to Rajasthan’s spending of around USD 48 million to provide more than 400 medicines.

In November 2015, I visited the Bhubaneswar public hospital, a multi-speciality 547- bed flagship hospital of Government of Odisha as part of Oxfam India’s campaign on free medicines (“#HAQBANTAHAI:Muft Dawa, Haq Hamara”). The hospital caters to over a million people. The hospital has 5 Drug Distribution Centres (DDCs) under the Niramaya Scheme, of which only two were functional at the time of my visit because of shortage of staff. One of the two DDCs operates 24 hours all days of the week while the other is open only during the day time. Out of the 570 medicines in the state’s essential drug list, the DDCs at the Hospital had only 236 medicines as the government is still in the process of procuring and providing more medicines.

According to the Central Medicines Store officer, “free medicines have always been available at government hospitals. It is just that now they are being provided under the name of a scheme”. He felt that the main problem with any scheme is the lack of “follow-up” after it is launched. The Central Medicines Store which manages the supply of medicines within the hospital regularly updates doctors on the availability of medicines to guide their prescriptions.

Staff at the DDC which functions 24×7 said that they serve nearly 1000 patients daily. In order to ensure continuous supply of medicines, they only dispense 3 to 7 days’ supply, even if patients came from far and had a chronic illness like diabetes or hypertension. As a result, the patients either discontinue the medicines or buy them from private pharmacies at higher costs or make additional trips to get the supply which for poor people is an additional financial burden.

Despite these limitations, I was very heartened to see the well-functioning DDC where patients trust the quality of its medicines. The DDC was clean and well-kept with medicines stored in racks in an organized manner. The room was well-equipped and staff were dispensing medicines very efficiently. In fact, the DDC could well pass off as one in any big private hospital.

The example of DDCs in Bhubaneswar clearly demonstrates that people use public facilities when they are available and well equipped. However, for continued success, the scheme must be “followed-up” as the officer mentioned above: the remaining 3 DDCs are opened, the stock of medicines is increased from the current 236 to the 570 on the essential drug list; and the doctors prescribe medicines available at the DDC. The success of the scheme would add to the evidence that public facilities do function!

References

[1]Global Health Observatory data repository, Health expenditure ratios, by country, 1995-2013, WHO

[2]Selvaraj S. and Mehta A., Access to Medicines, Medical Devices and Vaccines in India, India Infrastructure Report 2013-14

[3]Universal Access to Medicines in India: A Baseline Evaluation of the Rajasthan Free Medicines Scheme, WHO 2014

[4]Term used for socio-economically underdeveloped states in India.

[5]http://www.orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=59020; Demand for Grants and Budget at a glance, government of Odisha http://www.odisha.gov.in/finance/Budgets/2015-16/Annual_Budget/DEMAND_FOR_GRANTS.pdf

 

Share

Ensuring universal health coverage for the informal sector, poor and vulnerable groups

Early September, the East Mediterranean Regional Office of the WHO (EMRO) held a regional meeting on Expanding Universal Health Coverage to the informal sector, poor and vulnerable groups in September in Cairo. The meeting was one in a series of the EMRO strategy to support countries in implementing universal health coverage (UHC).

The aim of the meeting was to help countries devise national roadmaps to expand health coverage to the populations that face hardship in accessing healthcare. This aim was to be achieved via sharing global, regional and country experiences in advancing UHC, exploring political processes and structural and cultural factors involved and promoting a better understanding of UHC monitoring. This blog covers a number of key issues that were debated during the meeting.

The informal sector, poor and vulnerable groups

There was a debate about definition and identification of these populations. The region has groups such as migrant workers in the Gulf States, who may not fit with the ILO definition of the informal sector. The region also hosts millions of refugees, some of which maintained that status for decades e.g. Palestinians in Gaza, while millions of Syrian refugees are now living in Lebanon and Jordan.

Vulnerable groups are sometimes “unseen” and therefore their needs are not addressed. These include disabled people, especially those with intellectual disabilities, female and children headed households and street children. In general the informal sector population makes up the majority in most countries and therefore their health coverage has to be at the heart of any plans for UHC.

Country capacity to identify these populations is weak and the politics of targeting is complex and may have political cost. The real question is about the cost-effectiveness of governments’ focusing on identifying and registering populations in order to target services versus national funding of a basic benefit package that is available for everybody where all sectors of society can benefit.

Health financing in the region

The region is classified into three groups: group 1 comprises high-income countries e.g the Gulf States, group 2 are middle-income countries including Egypt, Iraq and Morocco. The third group of low-income countries includes Afghanistan, Somalia and Djibouti.

The percentage of government spending on health to total government expenditure in EMRO’ low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is low: on average 8% compared to the global average 11%. Out-of-pocket (OOP) spending is very high in the region even in countries that have health insurance schemes, leading to poverty and financial hardship. For example despite high insurance coverage in Iran, OOP represents 52.1% of the total health expenditure.

There is a recent interest in implementing or expanding existing social health insurance (SHI). Yet countries which have made progress towards UHC have relied on government funding. For example, Turkey introduced a Green Card to cover the informal sector, 70% of its costs is covered [1]by the government. This was accompanied with increased public expenditure on health. Turkey is merging the SHI and green card financing in order to provide a comprehensive package. The result is decreasing OOP to 17%.

Most social insurance schemes work separately and cross subsidisation is rare. Multiple schemes build inequality via different premiums and benefit packages and it is difficult to harmonise the schemes.

A number of countries and especially high-income countries choose a model of health insurance and are trying to extend premium payment and coverage to migrant workers. Private insurance is increasing in some countries such as Jordan where 25 companies provide private insurance. However there is no data on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the schemes.

Low-income countries are struggling to provide UHC. As aid- dependent countries there are questions about the responsibility of donors for long-term predictable financing to build strong public health sectors in these countries.

The evidence and discussions during the meeting clearly illustrated the fundamental role of government financing of health care to extend UHC to the informal sector, poor and vulnerable groups.

Delivery of healthcare

Reliance on the private sector to deliver healthcare is widely spread in the region. The range within the private sector varies from unqualified, unregulated provider to five-star hospitals – also often unregulated.

While there was near consensus at the meeting on the necessity of public financing to cover poor people, the informal sector and vulnerable groups, there was no consensus on modes of delivering the service. The role of the private sector was mentioned as “important” without defining that role. Yet evidence from successful countries such as Thailand and Sri Lanka show the importance of a strong public sector in providing UHC and the limited role of the private sector in achieving that goal.

Some commentators also suggested that separating purchasing from provision was an important part of extending coverage. However, there was a warning of the lack of evidence that such a split is more effective or more efficient in delivering health care than the direct financing and delivery within the public sector, and that indeed, often the reverse is true.

Questions were raised about governments’ capacity to manage contracts with and to regulate the private sector. Even high-income countries such as Australia face huge questions around whether the public are getting a good deal from the private sector. The South Africa experience shows the difficulties in regulating the escalating cost of the private sector. 80% of South Africans rely on the public sector. The private sector services 20% of South Africans yet consumes 60% of the total health spending[2].

Conclusion

There was general agreement during the close of the conference that country experiences point to a number of essential ingredients for expanding UHC to cover the informal sector, poor and vulnerable groups including:

  1. Strong political will: health was a political priority in countries that progressed towards UHC. Public demand (in Turkey) for healthcare was also influential in getting government’ commitment
  2. A “new” consensus that poor people, even collectively, cannot pay for their health care. UHC requires predominately public funding in a big pool (e.g. from tax). Extensive pooling leads to maximum redistribution of resources. No country has ever achieved UHC without heavy public expenditure. Even rich countries such as Japan, Germany and France increasingly rely of budget subsidy. Some commentators concluded from the World Bank study that Thailand and Mexico need to follows the example of Portugal and Spain by eliminating payroll payment and opting for tax finance. Chile has succeeded by delinking entitlement from the employment status
  3. The priority of UHC is providing services for the entire population then incrementally increase the scope of those services
  4. There are two ways to finance UHC: a) a functioning National Health Service based on tax financing, or b) public financing (budget transfer) into a national SHI to cover informal sector, poor and vulnerable groups. An important starting point is providing a standard package through all schemes whether based on insurance or public funding
  5. Financial accessibility is a necessary but not sufficient for UHC. Quality of service is of equal importance
  6. Countries’ claims of increased population coverage need to be backed up by objective assessments, in terms of: enhanced financial protection and quality and effective service coverage

 


[1] Country presentation at EMRO meeting in Cairo

[2]Country presentation at the EMRO meeting in Cairo

 

Share

Financing for development: More money into India’s public healthcare system by: Oommen C. Kurian. Photo credit: Srikanth Kolari

 

Out of pocket (OOP) expenditures push an estimated Sixty million Indians into poverty every year.

As the Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa ends, we present the case for financing health care in India. India is losing vast sums of potential tax money that could finance universal health coverage (UHC) while at the same time decreasing the health budget and promoting private finance and delivery of health services. A recent Oxfam India paper explores available evidence around financing healthcare for all in India and offers recommendations.

1.    The potential for tax funding

Free services like healthcare and education are vital to fight poverty and inequality yet India is being denied the resources to fund them. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that developing countries are three times more vulnerable to base erosion and profit shifting activities[1] of multinational companies- they lose 0.84% of GDP in the short run, compared to 0.23% lost by OECD countries. Recent research covering 1500 Multi-National Companies (MNCs) in India showed that those with links to tax havens reported 1.5 % less profit than those with no such links – a strong indication that the former are engaged in profit shifting (a global euphemism for cheating) more intensively than those with no tax haven links.

A study in 2013 showed that according to official sources, the amounts involved in mispricing –manipulation by over-invoicing of imports and under-invoicing of exports- in India ran at US$8.1bn in 2010-11, escalating to US$12.6bn in 2011-12. Corporation tax of 33% on these amounts would have provided US$6.9bn that could have helped fund free quality public services for all in India.

The Indian government can raise funds to invest in public services from a better tax system. The latest report from Global Financial Integrity lists India among the top five countries in the world with almost half a trillion dollars lost in illicit outflows in the past decade alone. Just to compare, India’s annual central expenditure on health and rural housing put together is $ 5.4billion.

India’s tax to GDP ratio is among the lowest of all G20 countries- far below other BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Moreover, the revenue foregone due to tax exemptions by the central government is estimated to be 43.2% of total tax revenue for the year 2014-15, or nearly 5% of India’s GDP. This shows that there indeed are alternative sources that can generate more resources for health.

2.    Current financing model and the impact on service use

Yet in India, there are extremely worrying trends of budget cuts and a focus on insurance as the way to achieve UHC.

Out of pocket (OOP) expenditures push an estimated 60 million Indians into poverty every year. User charges still remain in the public healthcare system. The overall public spending hovers at about 1% of GDP – the corresponding figures are around 4.5% for Brazil and 8% for the United Kingdom. During 1986-87, about 60% of the hospitalised cases were treated by the government institutions in urban and rural areas. In 2004, this figure fell to about 40%, reflecting the poor public spending on health[2]. Fortunately, the following decade saw focused attention on rural areas through increased health spending on improving infrastructure in rural India, which is slowly yielding results. Most deliveries across urban and rural areas are now taking place in government hospitals as the following chart shows.

This is a remarkable result given that government funded schemes across the country offered incentives to deliveries in private sector facilities. It shows that people’ trust in the public sector has improved.

Deliveries in Government Hospitals in India as a Percentage of Total (Sample Registration System, India)

The shift towards demand side financing was based on a rationale from survey findings during 1987-2004. The argument that even the poor preferred the private sector by 2004 however ignores the fact that this was a period when the public sector was systematically starved of resources and market principles were introduced into the system. Forgone care due to financial reasons had doubled between 1986-87 and 2004, from 15% in rural and 10% in urban areas to 28% and 20% respectively. Data for more recent years will be available by next year.

The spending cuts on public services in the central budget of 2015-16 are deeply concerning. Not only was the total allocations for health cut by about $945 million, but other budget cuts would affect peoples’ health too. For example the allocation to the child nutrition scheme was cut by half. At the same time, according to latest available estimates, 48% of children under the age of five are stunted due to chronic under-nutrition, with 70% being anaemic.

3.    Where the money should be spent: The privatisation trend

Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend against expansion of public sector provision of service especially from influential think tanks such as Niti Aayog, which just replaced India’s Planning Commission[3]. A recent book co-authored by Niti Aayog Vice Chairperson advises against any further expansion of free primary, secondary, and tertiary health care services in the public sector. Instead, it advises the government to focus on providing financial resources to the poor so that they can buy services. It even calls for the government to insist on full cost recovery.

Niti Aayog’s latest Working Paper on financing healthcare too veers dangerously towards privatised financing for health care which excludes poor people; unsustainable programs based on Corporate Social Responsibility and Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) without examining the evidence of effectiveness or problems of any of these approaches.

4.    Recommendations

The Oxfam India paper makes the following recommendations for the country’s health system:

  • The public system should be the primary provider of healthcare as the service that can ensure equity and quality reaching rural and remote areas as well as urban areas.
  • The government needs to prepare a clear roadmap for increasing budgetary spending on healthcare to around 5% of GDP. Tax based funding and contribution from the formal sector should finance healthcare. This funding model should address regional health inequities by specific central transfers to the poorer states.
  • Regulation of the private sector must be a government priority. This includes establishing and implementing standard treatment protocols and ensuring quality of care.
  • The central and state governments should implement mechanisms to empower communities to hold the healthcare system accountable in order to ensure equity and quality of healthcare in the public and private sectors.
  • A comprehensive review of the current funding model including various government insurance schemes should be conducted with the aim of future consolidation for a national programme ensuring healthcare for all.

[1] according to the OECD the term refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to make profits ’disappear’ for tax purposes or to shift profits to locations where there is little or no real activity but the taxes are low, resulting in little or no overall corporate tax being paid.

[2] Still, 60% of all people from the bottom 20% were getting hospitalised in the public sector in 2004.

[3] The Planning Commission was an institution in the Government of India which formulated India’s Five-Year Plans, among other functions.

 

Share

DFID and the privatisation of health and education by Jessica Hamer, Health Policy Advisor, Oxfam

In recent weeks, two separate reports have been released which critique the trend by DFID to increasingly involve the private sector in development, including the provision of health and education.

The first report by Global Justice Now maps a variety of initiatives supported by DFID to open up health and education markets to private firms – from a £25 million project with Adam Smith International aiming to enrol 50,000 more children in private schools in Kenya, to a £7million partnership with Coca-Cola on girls’ education and training in Nigeria. This latter scheme is part of a broader DFID-Coca-Cola collaboration which openly benefits the company’s sales plans, the report reveals. DFID’s support of HANSHEP – or ‘Harnessing Non State Actors for Better Health for the Poor’ – gets a particular profile too, including through their £35 million contribution to a Public-Private Partnerships advisory facility. DFID’s influence is shown to extend beyond the financial commitments it makes, through its advice to governments as they develop private sector-friendly policies for the delivery of services.

The second report by the UK Government’s aid watchdog, Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), reviews how DFID is working with the private sector to achieve its mandate to tackle poverty around the world. Worryingly it states that ‘DFID should reassess how it appraises, monitors and evaluates its engagements with business to ensure fitness for purpose and a sharper focus on the poor’ and that ‘In some cases… we are not confident that DFID’s support is additional to what businesses would have done anyway’.

For Oxfam, the dangers of the promotion of privatisation of health and education services, especially in relation to the rising tide of global inequality, are clear. Private services benefit the richest first and foremost, leaving people in poverty behind[i]. When health care is sold through the private sector for example, quality care and medicines are often available only to those who can afford it, while poor people may be forced to rely on low-quality or unqualified care like drug hawkers and grocery shops selling medicines[ii].

Indeed ICAI’s report notes that a survey undertaken of a HANSHEP programme operating in Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria – the African Health Markets for Equity – found ‘that less than 1% of people using facilities supported by AHME were from the bottom income quintile in Ghana and other participating countries’.

Prioritising the private sector can see public services eroded as scarce financial and human resources are diverted from the public to the private system, through an internal ‘brain drain’ and expensive public-private contracts. Oxfam’s exposé of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) hospital in Lesotho, found that the hospital was costing at least three times the amount of the old public hospital it was built to replace for example, amounting to 51% of the total health budget for the entire country[iii]. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) – manager of the DFID-supported PPP advisory facility mentioned above – advised on this PPP arrangement, reaping a $720,000 ‘success fee’ for its work[iv].

When richer people opt out of public systems for health care and education, they also have minimal interest in promoting spending on public services or demanding better quality, as well as less incentive to pay taxes. Thus a downward spiral of deteriorating quality can be set in motion[v]. The result is a 3 tiered system of five star services for the richest people, and a mixture of deteriorated public and unqualified private providers for the poorest. Inequality and poverty thrive.

The same tiered system also develops in education, where children of rich families often attend elite private schools and universities, while poor and lower-middle class children may have a choice between poor quality private education or deteriorating public schools. DFID, as well as other donors such as the World Bank, has been heavily promoting for-profit “low-cost private schools” for delivering better learning outcomes. However, the evidence on quality in these schools is weak. They rely on untrained teachers, standardization and scripted lessons to keep costs down.  Moreover, we know that any kind of school fees – as well as other related costs like uniforms and transportation – will block access to schooling for children from the poorest families.  Relying on fee-charging schools to deliver education will mean that too many of the world’s future Einsteins and Beethovens will be lost – shut out from accessing a quality education because of their poverty.

Profit-making companies also have clear interests in pushing for their own increased role in social sectors. In South Africa, private health insurance firms have been accused of lobbying against a new National Health Insurance Scheme that promises to provide essential health care for all.[vi] In the USA alone, the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors spent more than $487m on lobbying in 2013, more than was spent by any other sector[vii].

Debates on the role of public and private actors in health and education are increasingly relevant as the development community prepares for this summer’s Financing for Development (FFD) summit, where mechanisms for financing the new post-2015 development goals will be discussed. A submission led by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) responding to the draft negotiating text for the Summit, pushes the insertion of new language to promote ‘blended finance’ (public and private) and a bigger role for private finance, including ‘using limited public finance to mobilize private’.  In one shocking suggestion, the submission also advocates for the commitment to ‘move away from harmful, unsustainable [private sector investments]’ to be deleted too.

It is critical that any public funds used to leverage private investment, and private finance generally, comply with development effectiveness principles and be subject to robust environmental and social safeguards, be fully transparent and accountable, and be equitable in risk and benefit sharing between governments, donors and private investors. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) should be considered only where evidence of effectiveness is abundant and where alternative delivery options are not. Sustainable development criteria for PPPs should be adopted and endorsed by the private sector and by governments. Such criteria should also include the PPP design and implementation process being fully owned by the ostensible beneficiaries, full transparency of contracts and terms, and assessment in terms of equitable and affordable access to infrastructure and services. Oxfam, together with other agencies, have developed a series of sustainable development principles to guide how public-backed private finance is used.

DFID should learn from past experiences and revise its support for private sector financing and delivery of these critical services, prioritising instead investments in strong public services that can deliver universal health coverage and education for all.


[i] Basu et al found that the private sector in health care tends to serve higher socio-economic groups for example. Basu et al (2012) ‘Comparative Performance of Private and Public Healthcare Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review’, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 9., Issue 6. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001244&representation=PDF

[ii] Oxfam (2009) ‘Blind Optimism. Challenging the myths about private health care in poor countries’, pp.10-12, http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/blind-optimism-challenging-the-myths-about-private-health-care-in-poor-countries-114093

[iii] Oxfam (2014) ‘A Dangerous Diversion. Will the IFC’s flagship health PPP bankrupt Lesotho’s Ministry of Health?’ http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/a-dangerous-diversion-will-the-ifcs-flagship-health-ppp-bankrupt-lesothos-minis-315183

[iv] Ibid.

[v] T. Smeeding (2005) ‘Public Policy, Economic Inequality, and Poverty: The United States in Comparative Perspective’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 86 (suppl): 955-83.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Oxfam (2015) ‘Wealth: Having It All and Wanting More’. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/wealth-having-it-all-and-wanting-more

 

Share

« Previous Entries

Global Health Check is edited by Anna Marriott, Health Policy Advisor for Oxfam GB, and welcomes contributions from different authors. If you would like to write an article for this site or if you have any queries please contact: amarriott@oxfam.org.uk.