September 8 marked 15 years to the day
since the United Nations adopted the millennium development goals (MDGs). Soon
the world will adopt a new regime in global milestones, the sustainable
development goals (SDGs) that extend for the next 15 years, from 2015 to 2030.
Given the way the MDGs captured the imagination of the developing world, it is
perhaps safe to say that the SDGs will be a similar rallying point on a series
of development issues.
Of the eight MDGs, three relate
directly to health. The first goal was to reduce mortality among children under
the age of five; this is only moderately on-track. The second goal was to
reduce maternal mortality. On this India is off-track. India is on-track for
the third goal, which was to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, and only
moderately on-track on the fourth goal, which was to halt and reverse the
spread of malaria and other major diseases. In short, we have achieved only one
out of four targets. Globally, this is a worry, because if India does not
achieve the MDGs, given its size, neither will the world.
Are the SDGs any different from the
MDGs? For one thing, only one SDG addresses health, as compared to three MDGs.
On maternal and child health, the SDGs extend the MDGs, since they have largely
not been met in many developing countries. Non-communicable diseases have been
included, reflecting concern for the growing incidence of non-communicable
disease even among the poor. Alcohol abuse and tobacco have also been targeted.
Interestingly, the targets that have a
specific timeline mentioned are those for which cost-effective interventions
have been identified — for example, institutional delivery to reduce maternal
mortality. It raises the question: Are we adopting goals that have the “right”
cost-effective interventions, rather than discovering cost-effective
interventions for the right goals? For instance, mental illness is one of the
most prevalent morbidities in India, and suicide is the leading cause of death
among people between 15 and 29. There is only a passing mention of this in the
SDGs. Perhaps because there is no cost-effective intervention against mental
illness and suicide?
If the SDGs are seeking to complete and
extend the task of the MDGs, they should learn from the experience of the last
15 years. The failure of the MDGs has been blamed on a lack of adequate
financing and governance failure. This seems to be a simplistic answer. The
critique should look also at the way the MDGs were structured. First, the goals
and targets were interpreted too literally, without reference to the starting
point from which different countries began the journey. Second, the
cost-effectiveness analysis focused on addressing the biological causes of
disease, with little recognition of the social determinants of health. It was
this biological agent that was the target of the cost-effective intervention,
maybe because biological causes are easier to tackle.
Let us consider one of the key goals
that India has failed to achieve — reduction in maternal mortality.
Institutional delivery was the solution chosen to achieve this goal.
Strengthening health infrastructure, training manpower and incentivising women
who would otherwise have given birth at home to come to an institution for
their delivery have been the goals of the health system since 2005. Yet we did
not achieve the MDG for maternal mortality reduction. Why? The answer lies
outside the health system: Poor women in rural areas face tremendous challenges
in reaching an institution for delivery, despite government subsidies. There is
evidence that skilled birth attendance inside the home can be just as safe.
Many women find it more comfortable, less socially intimidating, and certainly
less expensive. But it takes time and sustained effort to ensure the quality of
care that will make it a credible choice.
This should teach us that the goals we
set should be informed by the realisation that health issues cannot be seen in
isolation from the social context. Can we put in place strategies that may not
bring quick wins, but over a period of time will ensure better health equity?
Can we
liberate ourselves from time-bound targets? We need to recognise the flaws in
the design of these targets and reflect on ways to address them if we are to
fare any better in the next 15 years than we did the previous 15.
September
8 marked 15 years to the day since the United Nations adopted the
millennium development goals (MDGs). Soon the world will adopt a new
regime in global milestones, the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
that extend for the next 15 years, from 2015 to 2030. Given the way the
MDGs captured the imagination of the developing world, it is perhaps
safe to say that the SDGs will be a similar rallying point on a series
of development issues.
Of the eight MDGs, three relate directly to health. The first goal
was to reduce mortality among children under the age of five; this is
only moderately on-track. The second goal was to reduce maternal
mortality. On this India is off-track. India is on-track for the third
goal, which was to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, and only
moderately on-track on the fourth goal, which was to halt and reverse
the spread of malaria and other major diseases. In short, we have
achieved only one out of four targets. Globally, this is a worry,
because if India does not achieve the MDGs, given its size, neither will
the world.
Are the SDGs any different from the MDGs? For one thing, only one SDG
addresses health, as compared to three MDGs. On maternal and child
health, the SDGs extend the MDGs, since they have largely not been met
in many developing countries. Non-communicable diseases have been
included, reflecting concern for the growing incidence of
non-communicable disease even among the poor. Alcohol abuse and tobacco
have also been targeted.
Interestingly, the targets that have a specific timeline mentioned
are those for which cost-effective interventions have been identified —
for example, institutional delivery to reduce maternal mortality. It
raises the question: Are we adopting goals that have the “right”
cost-effective interventions, rather than discovering cost-effective
interventions for the right goals? For instance, mental illness is one
of the most prevalent morbidities in India, and suicide is the leading
cause of death among people between 15 and 29. There is only a passing
mention of this in the SDGs. Perhaps because there is no cost-effective
intervention against mental illness and suicide?
If the SDGs are seeking to complete and extend the task of the MDGs,
they should learn from the experience of the last 15 years. The failure
of the MDGs has been blamed on a lack of adequate financing and
governance failure. This seems to be a simplistic answer. The critique
should look also at the way the MDGs were structured. First, the goals
and targets were interpreted too literally, without reference to the
starting point from which different countries began the journey. Second,
the cost-effectiveness analysis focused on addressing the biological
causes of disease, with little recognition of the social determinants of
health. It was this biological agent that was the target of the
cost-effective intervention, maybe because biological causes are easier
to tackle.
Let us consider one of the key goals that India has failed to achieve
— reduction in maternal mortality. Institutional delivery was the
solution chosen to achieve this goal. Strengthening health
infrastructure, training manpower and incentivising women who would
otherwise have given birth at home to come to an institution for their
delivery have been the goals of the health system since 2005. Yet we did
not achieve the MDG for maternal mortality reduction. Why? The answer
lies outside the health system: Poor women in rural areas face
tremendous challenges in reaching an institution for delivery, despite
government subsidies. There is evidence that skilled birth attendance
inside the home can be just as safe. Many women find it more
comfortable, less socially intimidating, and certainly less expensive.
But it takes time and sustained effort to ensure the quality of care
that will make it a credible choice.
This should teach us that the goals we set should be informed by the
realisation that health issues cannot be seen in isolation from the
social context. Can we put in place strategies that may not bring quick
wins, but over a period of time will ensure better health equity? Can we
liberate ourselves from time-bound targets? We need to recognise the
flaws in the design of these targets and reflect on ways to address them
if we are to fare any better in the next 15 years than we did the
previous 15.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/health-and-the-un/#sthash.kpfbsoQC.dpuf
September
8 marked 15 years to the day since the United Nations adopted the
millennium development goals (MDGs). Soon the world will adopt a new
regime in global milestones, the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
that extend for the next 15 years, from 2015 to 2030. Given the way the
MDGs captured the imagination of the developing world, it is perhaps
safe to say that the SDGs will be a similar rallying point on a series
of development issues.
Of the eight MDGs, three relate directly to health. The first goal
was to reduce mortality among children under the age of five; this is
only moderately on-track. The second goal was to reduce maternal
mortality. On this India is off-track. India is on-track for the third
goal, which was to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, and only
moderately on-track on the fourth goal, which was to halt and reverse
the spread of malaria and other major diseases. In short, we have
achieved only one out of four targets. Globally, this is a worry,
because if India does not achieve the MDGs, given its size, neither will
the world.
Are the SDGs any different from the MDGs? For one thing, only one SDG
addresses health, as compared to three MDGs. On maternal and child
health, the SDGs extend the MDGs, since they have largely not been met
in many developing countries. Non-communicable diseases have been
included, reflecting concern for the growing incidence of
non-communicable disease even among the poor. Alcohol abuse and tobacco
have also been targeted.
Interestingly, the targets that have a specific timeline mentioned
are those for which cost-effective interventions have been identified —
for example, institutional delivery to reduce maternal mortality. It
raises the question: Are we adopting goals that have the “right”
cost-effective interventions, rather than discovering cost-effective
interventions for the right goals? For instance, mental illness is one
of the most prevalent morbidities in India, and suicide is the leading
cause of death among people between 15 and 29. There is only a passing
mention of this in the SDGs. Perhaps because there is no cost-effective
intervention against mental illness and suicide?
If the SDGs are seeking to complete and extend the task of the MDGs,
they should learn from the experience of the last 15 years. The failure
of the MDGs has been blamed on a lack of adequate financing and
governance failure. This seems to be a simplistic answer. The critique
should look also at the way the MDGs were structured. First, the goals
and targets were interpreted too literally, without reference to the
starting point from which different countries began the journey. Second,
the cost-effectiveness analysis focused on addressing the biological
causes of disease, with little recognition of the social determinants of
health. It was this biological agent that was the target of the
cost-effective intervention, maybe because biological causes are easier
to tackle.
Let us consider one of the key goals that India has failed to achieve
— reduction in maternal mortality. Institutional delivery was the
solution chosen to achieve this goal. Strengthening health
infrastructure, training manpower and incentivising women who would
otherwise have given birth at home to come to an institution for their
delivery have been the goals of the health system since 2005. Yet we did
not achieve the MDG for maternal mortality reduction. Why? The answer
lies outside the health system: Poor women in rural areas face
tremendous challenges in reaching an institution for delivery, despite
government subsidies. There is evidence that skilled birth attendance
inside the home can be just as safe. Many women find it more
comfortable, less socially intimidating, and certainly less expensive.
But it takes time and sustained effort to ensure the quality of care
that will make it a credible choice.
This should teach us that the goals we set should be informed by the
realisation that health issues cannot be seen in isolation from the
social context. Can we put in place strategies that may not bring quick
wins, but over a period of time will ensure better health equity? Can we
liberate ourselves from time-bound targets? We need to recognise the
flaws in the design of these targets and reflect on ways to address them
if we are to fare any better in the next 15 years than we did the
previous 15.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/health-and-the-un/#sthash.kpfbsoQC.dpuf
September
8 marked 15 years to the day since the United Nations adopted the
millennium development goals (MDGs). Soon the world will adopt a new
regime in global milestones, the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
that extend for the next 15 years, from 2015 to 2030. Given the way the
MDGs captured the imagination of the developing world, it is perhaps
safe to say that the SDGs will be a similar rallying point on a series
of development issues.
Of the eight MDGs, three relate directly to health. The first goal
was to reduce mortality among children under the age of five; this is
only moderately on-track. The second goal was to reduce maternal
mortality. On this India is off-track. India is on-track for the third
goal, which was to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, and only
moderately on-track on the fourth goal, which was to halt and reverse
the spread of malaria and other major diseases. In short, we have
achieved only one out of four targets. Globally, this is a worry,
because if India does not achieve the MDGs, given its size, neither will
the world.
Are the SDGs any different from the MDGs? For one thing, only one SDG
addresses health, as compared to three MDGs. On maternal and child
health, the SDGs extend the MDGs, since they have largely not been met
in many developing countries. Non-communicable diseases have been
included, reflecting concern for the growing incidence of
non-communicable disease even among the poor. Alcohol abuse and tobacco
have also been targeted.
Interestingly, the targets that have a specific timeline mentioned
are those for which cost-effective interventions have been identified —
for example, institutional delivery to reduce maternal mortality. It
raises the question: Are we adopting goals that have the “right”
cost-effective interventions, rather than discovering cost-effective
interventions for the right goals? For instance, mental illness is one
of the most prevalent morbidities in India, and suicide is the leading
cause of death among people between 15 and 29. There is only a passing
mention of this in the SDGs. Perhaps because there is no cost-effective
intervention against mental illness and suicide?
If the SDGs are seeking to complete and extend the task of the MDGs,
they should learn from the experience of the last 15 years. The failure
of the MDGs has been blamed on a lack of adequate financing and
governance failure. This seems to be a simplistic answer. The critique
should look also at the way the MDGs were structured. First, the goals
and targets were interpreted too literally, without reference to the
starting point from which different countries began the journey. Second,
the cost-effectiveness analysis focused on addressing the biological
causes of disease, with little recognition of the social determinants of
health. It was this biological agent that was the target of the
cost-effective intervention, maybe because biological causes are easier
to tackle.
Let us consider one of the key goals that India has failed to achieve
— reduction in maternal mortality. Institutional delivery was the
solution chosen to achieve this goal. Strengthening health
infrastructure, training manpower and incentivising women who would
otherwise have given birth at home to come to an institution for their
delivery have been the goals of the health system since 2005. Yet we did
not achieve the MDG for maternal mortality reduction. Why? The answer
lies outside the health system: Poor women in rural areas face
tremendous challenges in reaching an institution for delivery, despite
government subsidies. There is evidence that skilled birth attendance
inside the home can be just as safe. Many women find it more
comfortable, less socially intimidating, and certainly less expensive.
But it takes time and sustained effort to ensure the quality of care
that will make it a credible choice.
This should teach us that the goals we set should be informed by the
realisation that health issues cannot be seen in isolation from the
social context. Can we put in place strategies that may not bring quick
wins, but over a period of time will ensure better health equity? Can we
liberate ourselves from time-bound targets? We need to recognise the
flaws in the design of these targets and reflect on ways to address them
if we are to fare any better in the next 15 years than we did the
previous 15.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/health-and-the-un/#sthash.kpfbsoQC.dpuf
September
8 marked 15 years to the day since the United Nations adopted the
millennium development goals (MDGs). Soon the world will adopt a new
regime in global milestones, the sustainable development goals (SDGs)
that extend for the next 15 years, from 2015 to 2030. Given the way the
MDGs captured the imagination of the developing world, it is perhaps
safe to say that the SDGs will be a similar rallying point on a series
of development issues.
Of the eight MDGs, three relate directly to health. The first goal
was to reduce mortality among children under the age of five; this is
only moderately on-track. The second goal was to reduce maternal
mortality. On this India is off-track. India is on-track for the third
goal, which was to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, and only
moderately on-track on the fourth goal, which was to halt and reverse
the spread of malaria and other major diseases. In short, we have
achieved only one out of four targets. Globally, this is a worry,
because if India does not achieve the MDGs, given its size, neither will
the world.
Are the SDGs any different from the MDGs? For one thing, only one SDG
addresses health, as compared to three MDGs. On maternal and child
health, the SDGs extend the MDGs, since they have largely not been met
in many developing countries. Non-communicable diseases have been
included, reflecting concern for the growing incidence of
non-communicable disease even among the poor. Alcohol abuse and tobacco
have also been targeted.
Interestingly, the targets that have a specific timeline mentioned
are those for which cost-effective interventions have been identified —
for example, institutional delivery to reduce maternal mortality. It
raises the question: Are we adopting goals that have the “right”
cost-effective interventions, rather than discovering cost-effective
interventions for the right goals? For instance, mental illness is one
of the most prevalent morbidities in India, and suicide is the leading
cause of death among people between 15 and 29. There is only a passing
mention of this in the SDGs. Perhaps because there is no cost-effective
intervention against mental illness and suicide?
If the SDGs are seeking to complete and extend the task of the MDGs,
they should learn from the experience of the last 15 years. The failure
of the MDGs has been blamed on a lack of adequate financing and
governance failure. This seems to be a simplistic answer. The critique
should look also at the way the MDGs were structured. First, the goals
and targets were interpreted too literally, without reference to the
starting point from which different countries began the journey. Second,
the cost-effectiveness analysis focused on addressing the biological
causes of disease, with little recognition of the social determinants of
health. It was this biological agent that was the target of the
cost-effective intervention, maybe because biological causes are easier
to tackle.
Let us consider one of the key goals that India has failed to achieve
— reduction in maternal mortality. Institutional delivery was the
solution chosen to achieve this goal. Strengthening health
infrastructure, training manpower and incentivising women who would
otherwise have given birth at home to come to an institution for their
delivery have been the goals of the health system since 2005. Yet we did
not achieve the MDG for maternal mortality reduction. Why? The answer
lies outside the health system: Poor women in rural areas face
tremendous challenges in reaching an institution for delivery, despite
government subsidies. There is evidence that skilled birth attendance
inside the home can be just as safe. Many women find it more
comfortable, less socially intimidating, and certainly less expensive.
But it takes time and sustained effort to ensure the quality of care
that will make it a credible choice.
This should teach us that the goals we set should be informed by the
realisation that health issues cannot be seen in isolation from the
social context. Can we put in place strategies that may not bring quick
wins, but over a period of time will ensure better health equity? Can we
liberate ourselves from time-bound targets? We need to recognise the
flaws in the design of these targets and reflect on ways to address them
if we are to fare any better in the next 15 years than we did the
previous 15.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/health-and-the-un/#sthash.kpfbsoQC.dpuf
