Search

The article discusses the call for papers on building a health economy for all in 2023. Topics covered include the existing structural and economic inequalities exposed by the pandemic, and the reorientation of economies for health towards a vision in which every person and people can flourish physically and mentally with dignity and opportunity in a healthy living planet. Also noted are the four themes to build economies for health that the World Health Organization (WHO) Council focuses on.

The authors reflect on the global health inequalities in the efforts to achieve optimal health and the sustainable development goals (SDG) set by the United Nations worldwide. Other topics include the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on programs to reduce income inequity among countries, and the authors' call for papers aimed at addressing inequalities in global health.

Despite a growing global commitment to the provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART), its availability is still likely to be less than the need. This imbalance raises ethical dilemmas about who should be granted access to publicly-subsidized ART programmes. This paper reviews the eligibility and targeting criteria used in four case-study countries at different points in the scale-up of ART, with the aim of drawing lessons regarding ethical approaches to rationing. Mexico, Senegal, Thailand and Uganda have each made an explicit policy commitment to provide antiretrovirals to all those in need, but are achieving this goal in steps — beginning with explicit rationing of access to care. Drawing upon the case-studies and experiences elsewhere, categories of explicit rationing criteria have been identified. These include biomedical factors, adherence to treatment, prevention-driven factors, social and economic benefits, financial factors and factors driven by ethical arguments. The initial criteria for determining eligibility are typically clinical criteria and assessment of adherence prospects, followed by a number of other factors. Rationing mechanisms reflect several underlying ethical theories and the ethical underpinnings of explicit rationing criteria should reflect societal values. In order to ensure this alignment, widespread consultation with a variety of stakeholders, and not only policy-makers or physicians, is critical. Without such explicit debate, more rationing will occur implicitly and this may be more inequitable. The effects of rationing mechanisms upon equity are critically dependent upon the implementation processes. As antiretroviral programmes are implemented it is crucial to monitor who gains access to these programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oral health is an important element of general health and well-being. Although largely preventable, many people across the world still suffer unnecessarily from the pain and discomfort associated with oral diseases. In addition, the costs of dental treatment are high, both to the individual and to society. Effective evidence-based preventive approaches are needed to address this major public health problem. The aim of this paper is to outline public health strategies to promote oral health and reduce inequalities. An extensive collection of public health policy documents produced by WHO are reviewed to guide the development of oral health strategies. In addition a range of Cochrane and other systematic reviews assessing the evidence base for oral health interventions are summarized. Public health strategies should tackle the underlying social determinants of oral health through the adoption of a common risk approach. Isolated interventions which merely focus on changing oral health behaviours will not achieve sustainable improvements in oral health. Radical public health action on the conditions which determine unhealthy behaviours across the population is needed rather than relying solely on the high-risk approach. Based up on the Ottawa Charter,a range of complementary strategies can be implemented in partnership with relevant local, national and international agencies. At the core of this public health approach is the need to empower local communities to become actively involved in efforts to promote their oral health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite a growing global commitment to the provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART), its availability is still likely to be less than the need. This imbalance raises ethical dilemmas about who should be granted access to publicly-subsidized ART programmes. This paper reviews the eligibility and targeting criteria used in four case-study countries at different points in the scale-up of ART, with the aim of drawing lessons regarding ethical approaches to rationing. Mexico, Senegal, Thailand and Uganda have each made an explicit policy commitment to provide antiretrovirals to all those in need, but are achieving this goal in steps — beginning with explicit rationing of access to care. Drawing upon the case-studies and experiences elsewhere, categories of explicit rationing criteria have been identified. These include biomedical factors, adherence to treatment, prevention-driven factors, social and economic benefits, financial factors and factors driven by ethical arguments. The initial criteria for determining eligibility are typically clinical criteria and assessment of adherence prospects, followed by a number of other factors. Rationing mechanisms reflect several underlying ethical theories and the ethical underpinnings of explicit rationing criteria should reflect societal values. In order to ensure this alignment, widespread consultation with a variety of stakeholders, and not only policy-makers or physicians, is critical. Without such explicit debate, more rationing will occur implicitly and this may be more inequitable. The effects of rationing mechanisms upon equity are critically dependent upon the implementation processes. As antiretroviral programmes are implemented it is crucial to monitor who gains access to these programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]