Go to the id21 home page   ID21 - communicating development research
Health
 
Search the whole id21 database
 

Help page and other search methods
    id21 Health
  Health systems
and economics
  Non-communicable
diseases
  Infectious
diseases
  HIV/AIDS
  Sexual and
reproductive health
  Maternal health
  Child health
  Environmental
health
 
    id21 Global Issues
 
    id21 Education
 
    id21 Urban Development
 
    id21 Natural Resources
 
    id21 Rural Development
 
    id21 Home page
 
    Gender and Violence in African Schools
 
    id21 Publications
 
    id21 Viewpoints
 
    About id21
 
    Links
 
    Contact id21
 
    id21News
 
    id21 Insights
 
    id21 Media
 
     
The way forward: prioritising district health care services in developing countries

The growing movement in favour of the privatisation of public services and the reliance on market forces in many developing countries suggests that the critical role of the district health system needs to be restated.  Research by the Institute of Development Studies, UK, indicates that district health services are the best means of delivering primary health care and basic hospital care and should be made a priority for public funding. The most important task is to develop a special programme of rehabilitation for a demoralised workforce, including improved management of staff mix and distribution, incentives for good performance, support and training as well as better pay.

Immediately following the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978 on primary health care, the industrialised world entered a long period of recession accompanied by neoliberal economic policies.  In developing countries this caused an economic crisis and the implementation of macroeconomic stabilisation and adjustment programmes.  The need to balance reduced budgets led to cuts in public health expenditure, drug shortages, deteriorating facilities and an overall decline in the standard of health services.  Not surprisingly, people, even the poor, turned to private health care. Some have attributed failures of primary health care to weakness in policy design. But this blames the victim. It fails to take account of how the political economy has starved it of resources.

The study found that:

  • The salaries of health workers fell enormously in the 1980s and 1990s with catastrophic results.  Many workers became demoralised, charged patients under-the-table fees, stole drugs, practised privately during working hours and became increasingly uncaring towards patients.
  • Although charging for primary care services has on occasion improved the quality and utilisation of care in certain situations, the poor are less likely to use them or else get into debt attempting to pay for the necessary treatment.
  • There is little evidence to support proactive privatisation, the use of markets, or introducing competition between different providers of health services.

Improving working and living conditions for health workers is essential for an effective public health service. The report further recommends that:

District health systems should be financed mainly from public funds.  Direct fees should be gradually replaced by public finance and subsidised prepayment schemes.

Cost effectiveness should enter into the selection of treatments for people but not into the selection of 'efficient' patients for treatment. Making sure everyone has an equal chance of achieving their potential for good health should be a priority.

  • Decentralisation is likely to be a good thing if it is carried out carefully; district health care should be a publicly provided service although other bodies can be contracted if needed.
  • Health programmes are best delivered through integrated district health systems. International assistance for health care should strengthen such systems rather than undermine them by supporting vertical health programmes.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria should not repeat the mistakes of mass campaigns in the past which diverted resources from local health services. It should not set programme targets that are driven by an international agenda and which can be achieved only by slowing the development of sustainable health systems, especially those for poor rural districts.

Source(s):
‘District health systems in a neoliberal world: a review of five key policy areas’, International Journal of Health Planning and Management 18: S5-S26, by M. Segall, 2003

id21 Research Highlight: 11 May 2004

Further Information:
Malcolm Segall
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1273 678450
Fax: +44 (0) 1273 621202
Contact the contributor: m.segall@ids.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Other related links:
'Wealthy countries’ gains maintain the brain drain in the health sector'

'Stronger health systems for more effective HIV/AIDS prevention and care'

'Tuberculosis control needs strong national health services'

'Getting better – improving public health services in South Africa'

'Bearing the brunt of economic reform: health care and the Vietnamese poor'

'Better budgets: improving resource allocation in Pakistan's health sector'

See id21's collection of links relevant to health systems and economics.

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Unless stated otherwise articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged.

Copyright © 2007 id21. All rights reserved.

Week beginning Monday 17th November 2008
FREE Information Delivery services from id21:
Get updates by email: id21 news
Insights: research digests
Contact id21

 

 

Go to the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK site.