PREAMBLE: In this issue we extract a report recently distributed by the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, as part of their effort to disseminate information on contemporary public health issues. This refers to work jointly published in the Lancet by Harvard University, Boston and the University of Washington, Seattle, which reveals that investment in the non-government sector may result in more favourable health spending by government than by investing directly in the government sector itself.
Specifically, the study reported below found that debt relief, and development assistance for health (DAH) to government had a negative and significant effect on domestic government spending on health such that for every US$1 of DAH to government, government health expenditures from domestic resources were reduced by $0•43 (p=0) to $1•14.
However, debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to the non-governmental sector had a positive and significant effect on domestic government health spending.
A counterpoint, implying that full understanding requires further examination, as explanations may vary widely depending on the situation of individual countries, is offered by another set of authors, whose comments are also extracted below.
Our topic choice for this issue is based on recognition that the findings of this Gates Foundation supported study have potentially major implications for donor funding. While there is a need to examine the findings further, especially in light of individual country situations, major questions about aid effectiveness emerge.
REPORT ON PUBLISHED ARTICLE - Public financing of health in developing countries: a cross-national systematic analysis
“…….Government spending on health from domestic sources is an important indicator of a government's commitment to the health of its people, and is essential for the sustainability of health programmes. We aimed to systematically analyse all data sources available for government spending on health in developing countries; describe trends in public financing of health; and test the extent to which they were related to changes in gross domestic product (GDP), government size, HIV prevalence, debt relief, and development assistance for health (DAH) to governmental and non-governmental sectors.
Methods
… a systematic analysis of all data sources available for government expenditures on health as agent (GHE-A) in developing countries, including government reports and databases from WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). GHE-A consists of domestically and externally financed public health expenditures. We assessed the quality of these sources and used multiple imputation to generate a complete sequence of GHE-A. With these data and those for debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to governments, we estimated government spending on health from domestic sources. We used panel-regression methods to estimate the association between government domestic spending on health and GDP, government size, HIV prevalence, debt relief, and DAH disbursed to governmental and non-governmental sectors. We tested the robustness of our conclusions using various models and subsets of countries.
Findings
In all developing countries, public financing of health in constant US$ from domestic sources increased by nearly 100% (IMF 120%; WHO 88%) from 1995 to 2006. Overall, this increase was the product of rising GDP, slight decreases in the share of GDP spent by government, and increases in the share of government spending on health. At the country level, while shares of government expenditures to health increased in many regions, they decreased in many sub-Saharan African countries. The statistical analysis showed that debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to government had a negative and significant effect on domestic government spending on health such that for every US$1 of DAH to government, government health expenditures from domestic resources were reduced by $0•43 (p=0) to $1•14 (p=0).
However, debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to the non-governmental sector had a positive and significant effect on domestic government health spending. Both results were robust to multiple specifications and subset analyses. Other factors, such as debt relief, had no detectable effect on domestic government health spending.
Interpretation
To address the negative effect of debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH on domestic government health spending, we recommend strong standardised monitoring of government health expenditures and government spending in other health-related sectors; establishment of collaborative targets to maintain or increase the share of government expenditures going to health; investment in the capacity of developing countries to effectively receive and use DAH; careful assessment of the risks and benefits of expanded DAH to non-governmental sectors; and investigation of the use of global price subsidies or product transfers as mechanisms for debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH.
Funding
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…..”
Source and Reference: Lu C, Schneider MT, Gubbins P, Leach-Kemon K, Jamison D, Murray CJL. Lancet 2010; published online April 8. 2010 - DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60233-4 Website: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960233-4/fulltext#
THE FOLLOWING COUNTERPOINT WAS ALSO PUBLISHED BY ANOTHER GROUP, IN COMMENTING ON THE ABOVE REPORT
VIEWPOINT: Crowding out: are relations between international health aid and government health funding too complex to be captured in averages only?
“…..In today’s Lancet, Lu and colleagues show that for every dollar of international health aid provided to governments, government health funding falls by US$0•43–1•14. Irrespective of whether this outcome is named fungibility or crowding out, mean estimates from many countries suggest a pattern. Without questioning the mean findings of today’s study, we argue that explicit policy choices are behind crowding-out effects, unfolding very differently dependent on the individual countries’ situations. To try to understand why some countries make these choices that result in crowding-out effects, and not only whether they do, is of importance…..”
Source and Reference: Ooms G, Decoster K, Miti K, Rens S, Van Leemput L, Vermeiren P, Van Damme W. www.thelancet.com Published online April 9, 2010 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60207-3
URL: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60207-3/fulltext
Showing posts with label DONORS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DONORS. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
FAMILY PLANNING & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH FALL OFF GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT RADAR
WASHINGTON, June 30, 2009. On the eve of the 20th anniversary of World Population Day, the World Bank and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) warned that family planning and other reproductive health programs vital to poor women had fallen off the development radar of many low-income and donor country governments and international aid agencies.
These programs, they said, were vital to boost women’s economic and social well-being, especially during the current global economic crisis, and to reduce endemic poverty and high numbers of maternal and infant deaths.
”The global economic downturn has taken a wrecking ball to growth and development in poor countries worldwide, and has become a development emergency for women because invariably they’re the first to suffer when economic crises strike”, said Joy Phumaphi, Vice President for Human Development at the World Bank, and a former Health Minister for Botswana. “Even before this crisis began, family planning and reproductive health had fallen off the radar of low-income countries, aid donors, and development agencies with the result that we’ve lost precious time in helping women get access to these vital health services, and helping countries get on a faster track to reducing poverty.”
Delivering a keynote address at the World Bank to mark the 20th anniversary of World Population Day, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid said that investing in women was a smart choice during a time of global economic crisis and cutbacks in health budgets worldwide.
“The sad and shocking truth is that maternal mortality represents the largest health inequity in the world, and of all the Millennium Development Goals, MDG 5 to improve maternal health is lagging the farthest behind. And with the financial crisis and the reduction in budgets for health, this goal will be even harder to realize. It is not a lack of knowledge that is hindering progress; it is a lack of political will to protect the health and rights of women.”
New preliminary World Bank figures show that while official global developmentaid for health soared from US $2.9 billion in 1995 to US $14.1 billion in 2007,roughly a five-fold increase in 12 years, aid for population and reproductive health had increased much more modestly during the same period, from $901 million in 1995 to $1.9 billion in 2007. In the 35 highest-fertility countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, aid for women's family planning and reproductive programs started at $150 million in 1995 and increased to $432 million in 2007, while overall aid for health in these 35 countries went from $915 million in 1995 to $4.9 billion in 2007. Support for population and reproductive health programs has significantly declined as a percentage of overall health aid, from about 30 percent in 1994 to 12 percent in 2008.
According to UNFPA, more than 500,000 women die each year during pregnancy and childbirth from mostly preventable and treatable medical problems. For every woman who dies, another 20 women suffer injuries and disabilities that can last a lifetime and rob them of livelihoods and physical well-being. Of all regions, Africa has the world’s highest rates of maternal mortality, at least 100 times those in developed countries.
Also speaking at the World Bank on behalf of the Obama Administration, Margaret Pollack, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State, said that falling birth rates cannot be achieved through better health programs alone and that better education for girls, equal economic opportunities for women, and fewer households living below the poverty line are also vital.
"We have seen time and time again that investing in women is an investment in families, communities, and societies. It is, in other words, an investment in our future. The United States is engaged and committed, and we look forward to working in partnership to ensure a world in which women are healthy, respected, and their rights are protected."
During the second half of the 20th century, world population more than doubled to reach 6 billion, an astonishing 3 billion increase in population in just 40 years. Although this rate has now slowed to 1.2 percent a year, an additional 75 million people are being added every year this decade. The world’s population could reach up to 9 billion by 2050, with the majority likely to live in the world’s poorest countries.
A recent World Bank report, Population Issues in the 21st Century: The Role of the World Bank, notes that family size can also greatly affect women’s jobs in the workplace. One cross-national survey suggests that the percentage of women in the labor force is directly related to national birth rates. For example, in Bolivia, there were strong links between women using contraception and having jobs outside of the home. In the Philippines, the average income growth for women with 1-3 pregnancies was twice that of women who had been pregnant more than seven times. The globe’s highest birth rates are found in Sub-Saharan Africa, where average fertility remains above five children per woman.
”The low status of women often poses a barrier because in many societies, women lack the power to make their own decisions about using contraceptives or using other reproductive healthcare”, says Joy Phumaphi of the World Bank. “Educating girls, improving economic opportunities for women, while giving them control over the design, management, and oversight of reproductive health programs, are very important ways to encourage better access to these essential health programs.”
Source: Press Release No: 2009/450/HD Washington, June 30, 2009.
For further information: World Bank Contact in Washington: Phil Hay (202) 473-1796 Cell (202) 409 2909 phay@worldbank.org UNFPA Contact in New York: Omar Gharzeddine (212) 297-5028 gharzeddine@unfpa.org
These programs, they said, were vital to boost women’s economic and social well-being, especially during the current global economic crisis, and to reduce endemic poverty and high numbers of maternal and infant deaths.
”The global economic downturn has taken a wrecking ball to growth and development in poor countries worldwide, and has become a development emergency for women because invariably they’re the first to suffer when economic crises strike”, said Joy Phumaphi, Vice President for Human Development at the World Bank, and a former Health Minister for Botswana. “Even before this crisis began, family planning and reproductive health had fallen off the radar of low-income countries, aid donors, and development agencies with the result that we’ve lost precious time in helping women get access to these vital health services, and helping countries get on a faster track to reducing poverty.”
Delivering a keynote address at the World Bank to mark the 20th anniversary of World Population Day, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid said that investing in women was a smart choice during a time of global economic crisis and cutbacks in health budgets worldwide.
“The sad and shocking truth is that maternal mortality represents the largest health inequity in the world, and of all the Millennium Development Goals, MDG 5 to improve maternal health is lagging the farthest behind. And with the financial crisis and the reduction in budgets for health, this goal will be even harder to realize. It is not a lack of knowledge that is hindering progress; it is a lack of political will to protect the health and rights of women.”
New preliminary World Bank figures show that while official global developmentaid for health soared from US $2.9 billion in 1995 to US $14.1 billion in 2007,roughly a five-fold increase in 12 years, aid for population and reproductive health had increased much more modestly during the same period, from $901 million in 1995 to $1.9 billion in 2007. In the 35 highest-fertility countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, aid for women's family planning and reproductive programs started at $150 million in 1995 and increased to $432 million in 2007, while overall aid for health in these 35 countries went from $915 million in 1995 to $4.9 billion in 2007. Support for population and reproductive health programs has significantly declined as a percentage of overall health aid, from about 30 percent in 1994 to 12 percent in 2008.
According to UNFPA, more than 500,000 women die each year during pregnancy and childbirth from mostly preventable and treatable medical problems. For every woman who dies, another 20 women suffer injuries and disabilities that can last a lifetime and rob them of livelihoods and physical well-being. Of all regions, Africa has the world’s highest rates of maternal mortality, at least 100 times those in developed countries.
Also speaking at the World Bank on behalf of the Obama Administration, Margaret Pollack, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State, said that falling birth rates cannot be achieved through better health programs alone and that better education for girls, equal economic opportunities for women, and fewer households living below the poverty line are also vital.
"We have seen time and time again that investing in women is an investment in families, communities, and societies. It is, in other words, an investment in our future. The United States is engaged and committed, and we look forward to working in partnership to ensure a world in which women are healthy, respected, and their rights are protected."
During the second half of the 20th century, world population more than doubled to reach 6 billion, an astonishing 3 billion increase in population in just 40 years. Although this rate has now slowed to 1.2 percent a year, an additional 75 million people are being added every year this decade. The world’s population could reach up to 9 billion by 2050, with the majority likely to live in the world’s poorest countries.
A recent World Bank report, Population Issues in the 21st Century: The Role of the World Bank, notes that family size can also greatly affect women’s jobs in the workplace. One cross-national survey suggests that the percentage of women in the labor force is directly related to national birth rates. For example, in Bolivia, there were strong links between women using contraception and having jobs outside of the home. In the Philippines, the average income growth for women with 1-3 pregnancies was twice that of women who had been pregnant more than seven times. The globe’s highest birth rates are found in Sub-Saharan Africa, where average fertility remains above five children per woman.
”The low status of women often poses a barrier because in many societies, women lack the power to make their own decisions about using contraceptives or using other reproductive healthcare”, says Joy Phumaphi of the World Bank. “Educating girls, improving economic opportunities for women, while giving them control over the design, management, and oversight of reproductive health programs, are very important ways to encourage better access to these essential health programs.”
Source: Press Release No: 2009/450/HD Washington, June 30, 2009.
For further information: World Bank Contact in Washington: Phil Hay (202) 473-1796 Cell (202) 409 2909 phay@worldbank.org UNFPA Contact in New York: Omar Gharzeddine (212) 297-5028 gharzeddine@unfpa.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
