Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Georgina Smith on

Hello:

this article is a good start, but may well lead somewhere else than more money for healthcare (more income of doctors, medicines, and clinics) .

Scandinavia (link below) suggests that actually the best way to get to the SDGs is to just give people money so they can buy food (and the 1 billion hungry people will be healthier, per dollar spent, than if governments keep funding corrupt health ministries) . Once that is accomplished, governments have to provide public goods where they do not exist, but are needed.

Except for infectious diseases, sanitation, water, pollution , and similar issues where governments have to manage very large externalities, "healthcare" is mostly a private good. Please read about Finland initiative to get rid of government social services providing private goods:
http://city-journal.org/html/finnish-model-14302.html

What you write is also misleading and surprising to find errors on an official webpage:

The international community now has 17 SDGs for 2030.
The goals are further split into 169 targets.
There is one health goal, split into 13 targets. One of the targets is UHC; UHC is but one of 169 targets.

UHC is but one of the 13 health targets.

Undeterred by this signal that universal access to health care is not the main concern that the world's governments approved and that health outcomes (especially prevented diseases!) the World Bank blog frequency is about 1 about UHC : 5 about all the other 169 targets.

UHC is certainly a populist target. It will make the healthcare industry bigger and more profitable. Dollar-for-dollar healthcare is not an effective way to improve the health of poor people. Public health measure are far more impactful, cost less, and keep people from getting ill in the first place.

Poor people, especially, deserve conditions where they STAY healthy. It is so sad that we cannot so far read about World Bank targets for preventing illness.

Lucy Winters, MPA