This is a very encouraging initiative not only because it addresses the concerns of worlds poorest communities but also initiated and spearheaded by the developed economies and our health mother - WHO. However, I am interested in knowing the criteria used to select first batch of countries to benefit from it and adequacy of this meager $5bn. What about the roll out to other nations, how will it be handled, is it demand driven or supply driven?
Also, I am a proponent of policies that address sustainability of programmes from the start. I am personally intrigued and would be happy to get documents about this bilateral initiative so I can understand their sustainability strategies.
I also would urge these developing nations.. to understand the 'seemingly inevitable packages' before thinking they are as good as they look on the surface. They have far reaching implications. If the implications are not thought over at the start, countries risk going into ventures that cannot be sustained and will harm our countries' fragile health systems.
There are other challenges such as inadequate political will to deliver health services to the poor, human resources imbalances between private and public sectors that will hamper commitments to provide free health services, etc. Unless these myriad challenges are addressed or at least be seen to be addressed right at the programme development stages, provision of free health services will remain a dream never to be achieved. I think developing countries' health problems, besides financing, are around dysfunctional health systems, with a very rigid and selfish leadership, rampant corruption, etc. We cannot fight this problem by getting a lot of money but by conditional provisions. Developed countries, I think, play double standards in many of the 'big brother' deals.
I am seeking other peoples' opinions on this 'seemingly fantastic solution' to developing countries' health concerns.
Nghania Frehd
PHM Uganda Chapter member
Kampala, Uganda
mailto:Frehd f_nghania@yahoo.com