Dr. Gorik Ooms announces the Global Health Conference
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Introduction
As the social impact of the global economic crisis intensifies, the need to buffer the world’s most vulnerable becomes increasingly urgent. The world requires vision and action to ensure that the global economic crisis does not become a global social crisis. The negative impact of economic crises on health protection is well-documented. The High Level Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems (Taskforce) has highlighted the fact that half way to 2015 many countries lag behind in reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Given the scale and scope of the current crisis, protecting and realising the right to health of all people has never been more challenging or more important. How can the world achieve this goal?
The Hélène De Beir Foundation firmly believes that the time has come for global leaders to move forward with a solution modelled on a ‘World Social Health Insurance’. Only innovative thinking and action can help launch a global initiative to redesign the “global health architecture” so as to protect the health of the world’s most vulnerable.
The proposed solution builds on innovative thinking from global public health specialists and well-respected academics. Julio Frenk, the new Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, recently argued that the concept of ‘health security’ (understood as the health components of ‘human security’) should include a “truly universal package of guaranteed benefits or entitlements, comprising [a] set of essential services applied to all in the world.” In calling for innovative thinking and action on universal social protection he argues that the current G8 commitment to strengthening health systems worldwide needs to be expanded to include “an explicit commitment to health budgets in the developing world” and structural reform.
The solution is consistent with the human rights approach to health articulated by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; which has affirmed the obligation of countries in a position to assist to help those that are too poor to fulfil their core obligations. It is also compatible with the idea of a ‘global social protection floor’, as advocated by the International Labour Office.
Another innovative suggestion was floated this March by the Taskforce’s Working Group which suggested a proposal to consider “the Global Fund and GAVI as a conduit for additional resources for health systems and achieving MDG 4, 5 and 6 while maintaining a focus on results.”
We believe the time has come to further explore these concepts and to initiate a move from concepts to practice. We believe that an international conference that brings together leading academics and practitioners will help progress this goal. The Conference will address the following:
Clarifying the conceptual framework:
- What is this ‘universal package of entitlements’, these ‘core obligations arising from the right to health’, and this ‘global social (health) protection floor’ and what precisely do these concepts include?
- Understanding responsibilities:
- What are the responsibilities of low-income countries and when can they claim assistance; what are the responsibilities of the G8 and those countries able to assist; which countries are we talking about and how should they share the burden amongst them?
Overcoming the obstacles associated with putting these concepts into practice:
Do we have a financial architecture that allows financial assistance from duty bearers to go to rights holders, in a sufficient volume and in a manner that is predictable and sufficiently safe from both corruption in recipient countries as well as political abuse by donor countries? How do our main trans-national funding channels for global health – bilateral aid, the World Bank, and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria – perform in this respect? Can bilateral aid be substantial and predictable enough or should donor countries pool their contributions? Is the governance of the World Bank consistent with the idea of equality of rights-owner and duty-bearer, rather than the uneven donor-recipient relationship? And can the Global Fund’s disease-specific approach be justified from a ‘right to health’, a ‘global social protection’, or a ‘health security’ perspective? If not, can the Global Fund broaden its mandate without commitments to greatly increased resources?
Convener
Hélène De Beir Foundation, Gent, Belgium
With intellectual, financial and/or moral support from:
AIDS Fonds, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium
International Centre for Reproductive Health, Gent, Belgium
International Civil Society Support, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Members of Parliament for the Millennium Development Goals, Brussels, Belgium
The Lancet, London, United Kingdom
