Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Health equity funds in Cambodia

2007, The Lancet

Blumer IR. Severe injection site reaction to insulin detemir. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 946. 3 Resh MD. Fatty acylation of proteins: new insights into membrane targeting of myristoylated and palmitoylated proteins.

Correspondence 1 2 3 4 5 Darmon P, Castera V, Koeppel MC, Petitjean C, Dutour A. Type III allergy to insulin detemir. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 2980. Blumer IR. Severe injection site reaction to insulin detemir. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 946. Resh MD. Fatty acylation of proteins: new insights into membrane targeting of myristoylated and palmitoylated proteins. Biochem Biophys Acta 1999; 1451: 1–16. Dea MK, Hamilton-Wessler M, Ader M, et al. Albumin binding of acylated insulin (NN304) does not deter action to stimulate glucose uptake. Diabetes 2002; 51: 762–69. Bachrach G, Banai M, Fishman Y, Bercovier H. Delayed-type hypersensitivity activity of the Brucella L7/L12 ribosomal protein depends on posttranslational modification. Infect Immun 1997; 65: 267–71. Health equity funds in Cambodia Panos Pictures The printed journal includes an image merely for illustration For the Indian Prime Minister’s speech at the inauguration of the National Rural Health Mission, see http://pmindia.nic. in/speech/content.asp?id=101 638 Bruno Meessen and colleagues (Dec 23/30, p 2253)1 compare the experience of health equity funds (HEFs) in Cambodian hospitals with the overall abolition of user fees in public health structures in Uganda. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was involved in the cited equity fund in Sotnikum district hospital, Cambodia, between 2000 and 2003 (report available from the authors on request) and we want to complement the reported results. The success of the Sotnikum HEF in improved targeting of exemption at hospital level critically relied on at least three factors: (1) sufficient funding from a third party source, external to the health structure and the health system; (2) an independent agent (in this case a local non-governmental organisation) determining inclusion based on clear agreed criteria; and (3) HEF funding being complementary to pre-existing health-care services with sufficient financial and human resources. Informal fees were outlawed and sanctioned strictly. From an implementation perspective, the question is how large the proportion of people unable to afford the existing fees should be before it becomes more sensible to abolish fees for all. In 2003, the HEF in Sotnikum hospital took charge of 40% of patients, which could be sufficient to tip the balance. Elsewhere in Cambodia, MSF initially applied an HEF for AIDS patients but soon moved to abolish fees altogether, maintaining compensation of transport costs, because social assessment showed the bulk of patients unable to pay. The current limitations of HEF in the contexts in which we intervene have not allowed MSF to replicate it elsewhere. In our experience, exemption systems based on individual entitlements are complicated and protect few people (report available from the authors on request). They compare poorly to general exemption or those based on large categories (eg, children), which are easier to apply and to verify. Therefore MSF’s operational policy implies abolition of user fees for all patients. We declare that we have no conflict of interest. Luc Van Leemput, Frédérique Ponsar, *Mit Philips, Nouria Brikci [email protected] Médecins Sans Frontières, Rue Dupré 94, Brussels 1090, Belgium (LVL, FP, MP); and Médecins Sans Frontières, London, UK (NB) 1 Meessen B, Van Damme W, Kirunga Tashobya C, Tibouti A. Poverty and user fees for public health care in low income countries: lessons from Uganda and Cambodia. Lancet 2006; 368: 2253–57. The need for strong general health services in India and elsewhere The Lancet’s series on health system reform in Mexico features a plea for a “diagonal approach” by Jaime Sepulveda (Dec 2, p 2017),1 referring to the dichotomy between horizontal health services and vertical control programmes. Although this dichotomy is indeed sometimes artificial and vertical programmes might be necessary in certain circumstances, we plead for caution with such semantic mollification. The common thread in vertical programmes is that planning, funding, and monitoring take place at the central or international level. Implementation is typically left to peripheral health workers who must respond to central pressure rather than to local needs.2 Vertical programmes can be an important asset for health systems by reducing a specific disease burden in the short term. However, long-term sustainability requires the presence of functional, permanent health services. Moreover, vertical control strategies are often determined by biological transmission control concepts, rather than by the entitlements of citizens to health care. By virtue of their earmarked resources, scientific interest, and performance-based incentives they tend to dominate national policymaking.3 In India, the mushrooming of vertical health programmes—family planning, polio eradication, disease surveillance, lymphatic filariasis—has led to disruptions in health-care provision.4 For instance, priority was given to polio eradication while coverage of routine immunisation dwindled5 and diseases such as diphtheria re-emerged. Finally, most people still die from diseases not targeted by vertical control programmes, such as diarrhoea, respiratory infections, or diabetes. The Indian prime minister has announced a return to horizontal health strategies. Strengthening health systems has also been reaffirmed as an important strategy of WHO. We hope that such renewed commitments to the entitlement of citizens to health care will become the central driving force to resource allocation for health at national and international levels. We declare that we have no conflict of interest. *N Devadasan, Marleen Boelaert, Bart Criel, Wim Van Damme, Bruno Gryseels [email protected] www.thelancet.com Vol 369 February 24, 2007