09 July 2008

Let’s stop subsidising failing government healthcare in Africa

2112115687_b00d657b05 G8 meetings follow a predictable pattern. In the months beforehand, campaigners call for more aid to Africa to fight diseases of poverty such as malaria. G8 leaders make grandiose speeches, commit billions of their citizens’ money, which then pours into the coffers of African governments. The health of Africans stubbornly remains poor. Campaigners accuse the G8 of not giving enough, and so on.

The foreign aid situation is becoming increasingly farcical. As William Easterly, author of The White Man’s Burden put it: “The status quo — large international bureaucracies giving aid to large national government bureaucracies — is not getting money to the poor.” As Prof Easterly intimates, the failure stems from the insistence of OECD government donors to give the lion share of aid directly to governments, who they then rely on to plan, manage and deliver healthcare.

The brutal truth is that most health ministries are not up to the job. They have almost no data to tell them if their work is effective and are riddled with corruption.

Donors, meanwhile, judge their own effectiveness by ‘input’ factors such as the number of bednets or drugs distributed, but they often have no information about whether or not health is improving as a result of their activities.

It’s time to scrap this system which is doing little for patients, other than enriching people lucky enough to have jobs in ministries. 

We could, for instance, insist that all British aid is henceforth spent on output-based competitive contracts for delivering healthcare, open to profit and non-profit groups alike. Where this has been tried, as in Cambodia, it’s been an immense success, and is particularly useful for getting services to groups that have been neglected by government provision, such as the rural poor.

The obvious advantage is that if the contract-holder does not deliver results, they don’t get paid.

DfID is currently moving in the opposite direction, increasing the amounts it pays to subsidise general government healthcare. Its blind optimism is rather touching, were it not taxpayers’ money being wasted.

There's further discussion of this issue in our latest CFD discussion paper -  Foreign Aid for Health: Moving beyond government.

15 May 2008

Political Bias in WHO Health System Rankings

A new report from the CFD reveals the WHO health system rankings to be statistically dubious and biased towards taxpayer-funded systems.

Influential among policy-makers, the rankings are also widely cited in media reports as impartial measures of health system performance. Michael Moore predictably cited the US system’s low rank in his film SiCKO. But the USA ranks lower than Morocco and Costa Rica, which is clearly absurd!

Our analysis shows that the rankings do not measure health system performance – over half (62.5%) of their weighting concerns equality rather than quality of service.

A further 25% concerns life expectancy – which is affected by factors unrelated to the healthcare system such as tobacco use and other drug use, diet and even homicide rates.

In the only real measure of health system performance – ‘Responsiveness’ – the US comes out number 1 in the world.

Incredibly the rankings ignore commonly-used measures of healthcare systems such as disease-specific mortality and survival rates. They do, however, give a quarter of their weight to ‘Financial Fairness’, a measure which inherently favours taxpayer-funded systems.

Last month there was a health systems conference in Africa. This week Commonwealth health ministers meet in Geneva. Next month there is a European ministerial conference on health systems.

Ministers and policy-makers at such events should be aware of the WHO rankings’ flaws, and look elsewhere for fairer international comparisons of healthcare systems.

Click here for the report.