The appearance and rapid spread of resistance to anti-malarial drugs has created a crisis for effective treatment in Africa. Consensus is growing that the only realistic treatment option will be a move away from treatment with one drug (monotherapy) to the more expensive combination therapies, particularly artemisinin-based combinations. However, a potential obstacle to the introduction of this new type of treatment is that it costs up to ten times more than monotherapy. There is concern that if poor patients’ families have to bear the cost of the drug combinations, they might delay treatment or avoid it altogether.
Resource allocation and health financing
African heads of state and government must not revise or further delay implementation of AU Abuja April 2001 15% health commitment says Archbishop Desmond Tutu & 15% Now Campaign. One hundred and forty-one African and global organisations and networks call on African leaders and finance ministers to restate 15% commitment at next AU Summit in Egypt.
Recently, a global commitment has been made to expand access to antiretrovirals (ARVs) in the developing world. However, in many resource-constrained countries the number of individuals infected with HIV in need of treatment will far exceed the supply of ARVs, and only a limited number of health-care facilities (HCFs) will be available for ARV distribution. Deciding how to allocate the limited supply of ARVs among HCFs will be extremely difficult. Resource allocation decisions can be made on the basis of many epidemiological, ethical, or preferential treatment priority criteria, says this research article in PLOS medicine.
In this current climate of financial constraints coupled with competing priorities among developmental goals, it becomes ever more critical for policymakers and others responsible for allocating resources to have firstrate tools available as a guide for effective decision making. The overall aim of this report is to inform such decision makers about the key findings of existing studies about the costs and benefits of investments in sexual and reproductive health, to identify what factors the studies encompass and what they leave out, and to provide a complete picture of what the costs and benefits would look like, including benefits that are hard to measure.
This article argues that an assessment of progressivity over time can provide an indication of progress towards a ‘more’ progressive or a ‘less’ regressive health financing system and can be useful to policymakers. It introduces a framework to characterize ‘shifts’ in progressivity in health financing between two time periods using the popularly known Kakwani index of progressivity and other associated indices. It also decomposes the ‘shifts’ in progressivity into the relative contributions of the changes in income distribution and the changes in the distribution of health payments. Further, it proposes graphics that statistically analyses how the ‘shifts’ in progressivity vary along the distribution of income. A pro-poor (pro-rich) shift implies that the health financing mechanism is becoming more (less) progressive or less (more) regressive between two time periods. A proportional shift means that progressivity is constant between the two periods. This framework is applied to nationally representative household data from South Africa. It emerged that such characterization is a very useful tool for policy in assessing progress towards equitable health financing.
Despite the proliferation of the term ‘fiscal space for health’ in recent years, there has been no comprehensive review of how the concept can be applied to assess and support the expansion of resources for the health sector. There is also a certain amount of confusion regarding the conceptual underpinnings and application of fiscal space for health analysis, notably regarding the way in which such analysis can help countries realise potential fiscal space for health expansion. In this paper, a qualitative review of 35 studies was undertaken in four stages to identify all fiscal space for health studies and to systematically assess their findings and methods. These four stages involved a literature search, crowd-sourcing techniques, data extraction, and comprehensive qualitative analysis. The study shows that economic growth, budget re-prioritisation and efficiency improving measures are the main drivers of fiscal space for health expansion. There is scarce evidence regarding the prospective role of earmarked funds, and development assistance for health in expanding fiscal space for the sector. The lack of standardised methods and metrics to systematically assess fiscal space for health results in variations in the analytical approaches used, and limits study relevance and applicability for policy reform. The paper concludes that a more contextualised approach to fiscal space analysis is required, which focuses on key sources of fiscal space for health expansion and includes efficiency enhancements. Fiscal space analysis should be systematically embedded in domestic budgeting processes and explicitly consider both technical and political feasibility of assessed options. Adopting this approach could offer considerable potential for optimising government budget and expenditure decisions and more effectively support progress toward UHC.
This paper set out to explore whether adding a gender and HIV training programme to microfinance initiatives can lead to health and social benefits beyond those achieved by microfinance alone. Cross-sectional data was derived from three randomly selected matched clusters in rural South Africa. A total of 1,409 participants were enrolled, all female, with a median age of 45. After two years, both the microfinance-only group and the IMAGE group showed economic improvements relative to the control group. However, only the IMAGE group demonstrated consistent associations across all domains with regard to women’s empowerment, intimate partner violence and HIV risk behaviour. In conclusion, the addition of a training component to group-based microfinance programmes may be critical for achieving broader health benefits.
In this paper, the authors assessed Malawi’s sector-wide approach (SWAp) through its essential health package (EHP) in terms of coverage and choice of interventions. A review of the cost-effectiveness of 55 EHP interventions was undertaken to assess the appropriateness of each intervention used in the EHP, using WHO recommended protocols for burden of disease and performance and National Health Accounts data for cost. The authors found that 33 of the 55 EHP interventions were potentially cost-effective, while 12 were not so cost-effective, and cost-effective estimates were not available for 10 interventions. The paper suggests further areas of potentially high cost effectiveness for future inclusion in the EHP. Overall, the authors conclude that the SWAp had invested in some very cost-effective health interventions. In terms of numbers of patients treated, the EHP had delivered two-thirds of the services required, despite serious under-funding of the EHP, an increase in the population and shortage of staff. In conclusion, the identification of interventions of proven effectiveness and good value for money and earmarked funding through a SWAp process can produce measurable improvement in health service delivery at extremely low cost.
This report is from a study carried out by the Uganda Coalition for Access to Essential Medicines (UCAEM), to assess the implementation of the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and TB in Uganda. The study was specifically designed to offer an analysis of the implementation process and activities of the UGFATMP with the aim of establishing the involvement of key stakeholders particularly CSOs, identify the challenges, document beneficiary perspectives and make recommendations on key CSOs concerns about the process. Despite successes around the world this report reveals that there are still concerns at the country level in Uganda.
With United States (US) President Barack Obama's release of his 2012 foreign affairs budget and a Senate proposal to cut US international spending, the fight to sustain US aid abroad is intensifying, according to this article. Development and foreign policy analysts largely praised the administration's funding appeal for maximising returns by focusing spending on strategic areas such as global health, food security and climate change. Major funding hikes include an US$850 million (10.8%) raise for global health and child survival programmes, and a US$400 million (16%) raise for development assistance – which includes a US$1.1 billion boost to the Feed the Future Initiative and a US$651 million contribution to the Global Climate Change Initiative. But a proposal has been put forward to cut total spending for 2011 by US$100 billion, and conservative lawmakers are moving to lump the international budget with non-security accounts in a bid to make massive reductions possible. Their efforts emerge in the wake of Obama’s State of the Union speech in January 2011, where he pledged to freeze non-security funding for the next five years.