NPR’s The Takeaway asks in an interview with one of our local troublemakers this week, are billionaire philanthropists the true champions in the fight against poverty? Listen to at least part of the audio to get the tone of the critique, as well as read the selected transcripts below. http://www.nyudri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/piece01.mp3 Bill Easterly: I have nothing to take away from the billionaires who are very generous, who are spending on the poor rather than on private jets – that’s great. But what can actually happen is they can also have too much influence on the way we see the whole problem of global poverty. … Gates has this ‘great man’ approach to development in which he sees great national leaders and great philanthropists like himself doing all the good things that happen
The aims of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), as defined by the World Health Organization, are: “to provide all people with access to needed health services (including prevention, promotion, treatment and rehabilitation) of sufficient quality to be effective; and ensure that the use of these services does not expose the user to financial hardship.” Yet as I studied cancer care and control policies in Andhra Pradesh, India, I realized that I did not fully grasp what this definition of UHC actually entails. I particularly took issue with the phrase “to provide all people with access.” When we say that a country or a state has achieved universal coverage – or in the case of the Rajiv Aarogyasri Scheme (RAS), 87% coverage of the state’s population – what does that mean in practice? At first, I assumed that the expansive reach of RAS ensured that 87% of the population could access free tertiary care. But my conversations with state government officials and health care providers suggested otherwise.
Bill Easterly responds to Bill and Melinda Gates’ Annual Letter: Mr Gates says there has been much progress, but that “we’ll need to apply human ingenuity and act on our compassion” to keep it going. Conversely, he equates the idea that “the world is getting worse” to the idea that “we can’t solve extreme poverty and disease”. For Mr Gates, apparently, much depends on what “we” do. But who are “we”, and who put us in charge? Mr Gates seems to have in mind the global elite whose most prominent representatives were this week assembled in Davos: political leaders, business executives, philanthropists, academics and functionaries from international institutions such as the World Bank.
Background: International policy towards access to essential medicines in Africa has focused until recently on international procurement of large volumes of medicines, mainly from Indian manufacturers, and their import and distribution.
Starting today and culminating on March 19th at the Center for Global Development, we hope you’ll join a conversation along with experts from implementing agencies, governments, research institutions, and the private sector to discuss and debate what makes a “best buy” in global health. The post Let’s talk about the Best Buys for Global Health appeared first on PSI Impact Blog.
Majdi Ashour (ex-participant courses of Health Policy and QMM at ITM; New Voice in Global Health at the World Health Summit in Berlin in 2013) More than one month ago, The Lancet published the series “Health in the Arab World : a view from within”. On the eve of the launch of the Lancet series, a bomb exploded in a southern suburb of Beirut, echoing the horror in Syria. This explosion is not an isolated incident in a region where violence has – sadly – become commonplace. Instead, it symbolizes the scene of health issues in the region. The Lancet Series used the appropriate lens, in other words.
This is a re-post, with some revisions, of a post that originally appeared here. * * * * * One thing that’s too-rarely mentioned in the heated debate about how to fix aid is how to fix or at least take care of us, the humanitarian workers. I’m not sure why that is. Maybe we feel […]