Obligations of low income countries in ensuring equity in global health financing

Abstract

BackgroundDespite common recognition of joint responsibility for global health by all countries particularly to ensure justice in global health, current discussions of countries’ obligations for global health largely ignore obligations of developing countries. This is especially the case with regards to obligations relating to health financing. Bearing in mind that it is not possible to achieve justice in global health without achieving equity in health financing at both domestic and global levels, our aim is to show how fulfilling the obligation we propose will make it easy to achieve equity in health financing at both domestic and international levels.DiscussionAchieving equity in global health financing is a crucial step towards achieving justice in global health. Our general view is that current discussions on global health equity largely ignore obligations of Low Income Country (LIC) governments and we recommend that these obligations should be mainstreamed in current discussions. While we recognise that various obligations need to be fulfilled in order to ultimately achieve justice in global health, for lack of space we prioritise obligations for health financing. Basing on the evidence that in most LICs health is not given priority in annual budget allocations, we propose that LIC governments should bear an obligation to allocate a certain minimum percent of their annual domestic budget resources to health, while they await external resources to supplement domestic ones. We recommend and demonstrate a mechanism for coordinating this obligation so that if the resulting obligations are fulfilled by both LIC and HIC governments it will be easy to achieve equity in global health financing.SummaryAlthough achieving justice in global health will depend on fulfilment of different categories of obligations, ensuring inter- and intra-country equity in health financing is pivotal. This can be achieved by requiring all LIC governments to allocate a certain optimal per cent of their domestic budget resources to health while they await external resources to top up in order to cover the whole cost of the minimum health opportunities for LIC citizens.

Responding to maternal, neonatal and child health equipment needs in Kenya: a model for an innovation ecosystem leveraging on collaborations and partnerships

“…Medicines, vaccines and technologies are among the six building blocks of a health system 1. But there has been inadequate funding in the health sector2 and poor priority setting practices,3 4 leading to low investment in medical products and technologies and resulting in a majority of medical devices used for maternal and child health being donations, which are never enough 5 6. It is estimated that up to 70% of medical devices in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are partially or completely non-functional due to various factors; donated devices are often designed in and for high-income settings and are not well suited to low-resource settings, and often arrive without manuals or service contracts 7.…”

Understanding the futility of countries’ obligations for health rights: realising justice for the global poor

“…However, still there is no suggestion as to how much of such external resources each LIC is entitled to or an officially recognised mechanism of how to determine such amounts of resources. We have proposed, defended and demonstrated such a mechanism elsewhere [ 24 ]. The current discretion regarding health resource allocations is directly implied by paragraph 71 of the Limburg Principles.…”

“…The “minimum core obligations” as interpreted by Maastricht Guidelines on violations still do not define the minimum in, for example, Nussbaum’s terms of “some appropriate threshold level” in her idea of the “minimal account of social justice” [ 6 ]. This kind of minimum which makes reference to a specific threshold would be a determinate level of, for example, a minimum global health-resource per capita which must be guaranteed to every individual through fulfilment of domestic and extraterritorial obligations as we demonstrated elsewhere [ 24 ].…”

“…Finally, the recognition by the UN Committee on ESCR of extraterritorial obligations relating to ESCR promises hope with regard to countries’ compliance with their obligations. However, the impact of this recognition, especially on international resource transfer, will largely depend on the precision regarding which State Party should transfer how much resources to whom; or on the recognition and implementation of a mechanism such as one we proposed elsewhere [ 24 ]. However, this explicit recognition is crucial for the negative obligations of countries and their international companies (not to violate ESCR of citizens where they operate), and for providing clear complaint procedures and mechanisms to those who think their rights have been (positively) violated as reflected in the Committee’s concluding observations on the second periodic report of China [ 32 ].…”

Stakeholders Analysis of Health Insurance Benefit Package Policy in Iran

“…These priorities may be known and official or not so clear and specified, and depend on the procedure of policy-making and prioritization of health services (1,2). Due to various reasons, such as demographic and epidemiological changes, increased awareness, education and training, new technologies, increasing of family income and consequently high demand for health services and inability of countries to increase health resources with the same speed, no country could provide all health costs.…”