Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Curtis Doebbler on

This is a good comment not only on how the SDG indicator work has gone off-track, but also why UHC is not the right direction to go. UHC is seen as insurance coverage by most of its supporters, especially Americans. Obama-care is the classic example of an insurance-based approach to UHC, is welfare for health insurance companies that guarantees them profits as long as they don't squander their revenues.

More sensible and meaningful would have been a rights-based approach to health. This would have emphasized the State's responsibility for enduring actual health coverage--not merely insurance coverage. Unfortunately the World Bank and WHO gave upon or even opposed this. When civil society belatedly called for a rights-based approach to health at the 2014 DPI/NGO Conference, the World Bank and WHO largely ignored them and sometimes even spoke against them.

Even now, as this comment indicates, the Bank is still wandering the wilderness of old economic solutions.

The proposed out-pocket indicator--just like WHO's reasonable suggestion for a vaccination coverage indicator--makes sense in the business-as-usual economic focus on UHC, but it won't get us any closer to protecting peoples health. Just like 70 years of classical development paradigms have left most of the most vulnerable people in the world further from the wealthiest people in the world, so does a economic-based UHC merely attempts to coverup the problem instead of resolve it.