The Ebola outbreak has shocked the entire world of global health. Even while Ebola lingers in West Africa the future of health security and the organisation of health systems are being debated.
There have been many conferences held and reports published to provide “lessons learned from the Ebola crisis. A thread running through all of these events has been an agreement on the need to build resilient health systems. Yet building such a system requires planning, investment and serious long term commitment. Short term investment does not produce the necessary workforce needed for a functioning health system. Dhillon and Yates identified 5 key areas that require immediate attention in order to rebuild health systems: community based systems; access to generic medicines; restoring preventive measures; integrating surveillance into health systems and strengthening management.
An Oxfam paper identifies six critical foundations for resilient health systems. I can visualise these foundations as a chair with 4 legs. If you keep one leg short and invest in another leg, the balance is tipped and the chair falls. Meantime if you ignore the base or the back of the chair, it moves from the seating area to the recycling bin!
An adequate number of trained health workers, including non-clinical staff and Community Health Workers (CHWs)
The urgency of allocating resources over a ten year period cannot be better expressed than by Bernadette Samura, a health worker from Pamaronkoh, Sierra Leone:
“Because many nurses have died, it is time for the government now to train more nurses’.
Based on the WHO’s minimum standards of 2.3 doctors, nurses and midwives /10,000 people, Oxfam calculated the gap in these workers and the cost of training and paying them. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau require $420m to train 9,020 medical doctors and 37,059 nurses and midwives. Once they were trained, a total of $297m annually would be needed to pay their salaries for 10 years. It is worth remembering that at the height of the outbreak, all humanitarian agencies were desperately seeking program managers, logisticians, financial officers, epidemiologists, community mobilizers, and others in addition to clinical staff. Yet these cadres hardly feature in global talks or statistics about the necessary composition of an adequate health workforce.
The lack of vaccines and medicines for Ebola shone a spotlight on the failure of the global research and development (R&D) system. The current system relies on monopoly created by intellectual property rules which leads to pharmaceutical companies conducting R&D in diseases that are expected to produce high profits. In order to get the balance in favour of public health, the public sector has to have a hold over sitting the health priorities and financing of R&D.
The Ebola outbreak highlighted the critical role of HIS in disease control. However, surveillance, which is now being highlighted as critical to disease control, needs to be an integral (not parallel) part of HIS and the overall health system. Epidemiologists alone will not be able to produce useful and reliable data. Effective surveillance requires doctors and nurses to diagnose the diseases, and community workers who gain community trust to report cases. All these workers are needed to act appropriately in their respective roles to prevent the spread of and treat those affected by these diseases.
There are 0.8 hospital beds per 10,000 people in Liberia and 0.3 in Guinea compared to an average of 50 beds in OECD Countries. Scaling up the number of well-equipped health posts and district hospitals, especially in underserved areas, is critical not only to address health needs but also to build community trust in health systems.
Countries’ experience clearly indicates that long term sustainable, reliable and equitable financing has to be based on public financing. The annual funding gap that must be covered in order to achieve universal primary health care is approximately $419m for Sierra Leone, $279m for Liberia, $882m for Guinea and $132m for Guinea-Bissau. Although the sums specified are large it is possible to raise the necessary resources by relying on various forms of tax funding, innovative financing and donors’ support. For example, in 2012, tax incentives awarded to six foreign companies in Sierra Leone were estimated to be worth eight times the national health budget.
Evidence shows that countries that achieved or made progress to achieve UHC relied on a strong public sector. Relying on private provision risks creating a two tier system, whereby poor people pay for a dubious quality of service from drug peddlers and others, while wealthy people enjoy the services of 5-star hospitals.
Building resilient systems that protect people’s health and deal with outbreaks has to address all the six elements of the system simultaneously and systematically. Achieving better health outcomes for all and protecting the world from emerging diseases requires a long term global commitment for building health systems. This must start now.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Calculated from the estimated figure to reach UHC (the agreed $86/person per year multiplied by the population number) and the current public spending on health
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.
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.
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
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
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%. Two-thirds of the out-of-pocket expenditure is on medicines alone. 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. 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 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. 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!
Global Health Observatory data repository, Health expenditure ratios, by country, 1995-2013, WHO
Selvaraj S. and Mehta A., Access to Medicines, Medical Devices and Vaccines in India, India Infrastructure Report 2013-14
Universal Access to Medicines in India: A Baseline Evaluation of the Rajasthan Free Medicines Scheme, WHO 2014
Term used for socio-economically underdeveloped states in India.
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
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 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.
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:
 Country presentation at EMRO meeting in Cairo
Country presentation at the EMRO meeting in Cairo
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 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
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. 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.
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. 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.
 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.
 Still, 60% of all people from the bottom 20% were getting hospitalised in the public sector in 2004.
 The Planning Commission was an institution in the Government of India which formulated India’s Five-Year Plans, among other functions.