SeriesAchieving universal coverage with health interventions
Section snippets
Choice of priority interventions
In this article we build on the issues raised in preceding reports,1, 2, 3 examining how health programmes known to be effective in low-income countries can be taken to scale. Scale has become a popular word, as evidence mounts that available, affordable, and effective interventions are not reaching many of those who need them.4, 5 As documented in the first article of this series1 and elsewhere,6 people not receiving services are disproportionately from among the poor. Our emphasis will be on
Health delivery issues
A proportion of the failure to achieve adequate and equitable population coverage with good public health programmes can be attributed to weaknesses in health delivery systems. Alternative strategies for strengthening the delivery of interventions have received little attention.19 This lack is largely attributable to the fact that effectiveness studies have often failed to separate the health impact of a specific intervention (eg, a vaccine), from the delivery strategy used to reach the target
Type of programme
The debate between proponents of vertical and horizontal approaches to health delivery is not new.28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Horizontal approaches tend to incorporate several health interventions as part of a comprehensive primary care approach, usually delivered through government health facilities. Vertical programmes, on the other hand, tend to deliver selected interventions, often independently, with specialised management, logistics, and delivery mechanisms. These services could be delivered
Costs
When faced with the issue of going to scale with a given programme, the first question that many policy-makers will ask is how much will it cost? Experts have estimated the costs of going to scale with specified packages of health interventions, as in the 1993 World Development Report35 and the Commission for Macroeconomics and Health.8 The World Bank has estimated the resources needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals,38 which extend beyond health to include the full range of
Operational opportunities and constraints
Irrespective of the technical issues a substantial rise in expenditure is needed to go to scale. But how money is spent will also determine whether additional spending will be translated into effective coverage, especially among the poor. Furthermore, there may also be limits to the ability of systems to spend additional resources efficiently and effectively, sometimes referred to as difficulties of absorptive capacity (panel 2). Work done for the Commission for Macroeconomics and Health
Conclusions
Known, cost-effective interventions with potential for greatly improving global health are still failing to reach a high proportion of the world's population. We have argued that going to scale with these interventions is essential for improving global health, and that strong health systems are essential for reaching this objective in a sustainable way.
Multitrack approaches are needed that address both the need to achieve short-term universal coverage at high levels of quality, and the
References (45)
- et al.
Making health systems more equitable
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
Health financing and equity of use in low income settings
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
How to bridge the gap in human resources for health
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
Reducing child mortality: can public health deliver?
Lancet
(2003) - et al.
Applying an equity lens to child health and mortality: more of the same is not enough
Lancet
(2003) - et al.
How many child deaths can we prevent this year?
Lancet
(2003) - et al.
Overcoming health systems constraints to achieve the Millennium Development Goals
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
Scaling-up treatment for HIV/AIDS: lessons learned from multidrug-resistant tuberculosis
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
Malaria intermittent preventive treatment in infants, chemoprophylaxis, and childhood vaccinations
Lancet
(2004) Integrated approach to child health in developing countries
Lancet
(1999)