The new World Mental Health Report: Believing impossible things

OBJECTIVE

We examine whether the recent World Health Organization (WHO) report on global mental health uses severity of illness as a criterion in priority setting for resource allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The WHO does not prioritise severity in the recent landmark World Mental Health Report. It recommends instead the insuperable task of scaling-up interventions for broadly defined mental health conditions, including milder distress, amongst over a billion people, with the majority living in low- and middle-income countries. Schizophrenia, the most severe and disabling of all psychiatric illnesses, is relatively neglected in the WHO report, and the disability associated with bipolar disorder is underestimated. This is inconsistent with the ethical principle of vertical equity, where the most severe illnesses should receive the greatest priority. The global mental health movement must refocus on deinstitutionalisation, and ensure adequate community and general hospital treatment for severe illnesses, especially the 24 million people with schizophrenia.

Is healthcare really equal for all? Assessing the horizontal and vertical equity in healthcare utilisation among older Ghanaians

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of focused research on the older population in Ghana and about issues pertaining to their access to healthcare services. Furthermore, information is lacking regarding the fairness in the access to these services. This study aimed to ascertain whether horizontal and vertical equity requirements were being met in the healthcare utilisation among older adults aged 50 years and above.

METHODS

This study was based on a secondary cross-sectional data from the World Health Organization's Study on global AGEing (SAGE) and adult health wave 1 conducted from 2007 to 2008 in Ghana. Data on 4304 older adults aged 50 years-plus were analysed. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were carried out to analyse the association between outpatient/inpatient utilisation and (1) socioeconomic status (SES), controlling for need variables (horizontal equity) and (2) need variables, controlling for SES (vertical equity). Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to analyse the association between relevant variables.

RESULTS

Horizontal and vertical inequities were found in the utilisation of outpatient services. Inpatient healthcare utilisation was both horizontally and vertically equitable. Women were found to be more likely to use outpatient services than men but had reduced odds of using inpatient services. Possessing a health insurance was also significantly associated with the use of both inpatient and outpatient services.

CONCLUSION

Whilst equity exists in inpatient care utilisation, more needs to be done to achieve equity in the access to outpatient services. The study reaffirms the need to evaluate both the horizontal and vertical dimensions in the assessment of equity in healthcare access. It provides the basis for further research in bridging the healthcare access inequity gap among older adults in Ghana.

An exploratory study on equity in funding allocation for essential medicines and health supplies in Uganda's public sector

Background

To ascertain equity in financing for essential medicines and health supplies (EMHS) in Uganda, this paper explores the relationships among government funding allocations for EMHS, patient load, and medicines availability across facilities at different levels of care.

Methods

We collected data on EMHS allocations and availability of selected vital medicines from 43 purposively sampled hospitals and the highest level health centers (HC IV), 44 randomly selected lower-level health facilities (HC II, III), and from over 400 facility health information system records and National Medical Stores records. The data were analyzed to determine allocations per patient within and across levels of care and the effects of allocations on product availability.

Results

EMHS funding allocations per patient varied widely within facilities at the same level, and allocations per patient between levels overlapped considerably. For example, HC IV allocations per patient ranged from US$0.25 to US$2.14 (1:9 ratio of lowest to highest allocation), and over 75 % of HC IV facilities had the same or lower average allocation per patient than HC III facilities. Overall, 43 % of all the facilities had optimal stock levels, 27 % were understocked, and 30 % were overstocked. Using simulations, we reduced the ratio between the highest and lowest allocations per patient within a level of care to less than two and eliminated the overlap in allocation per patient between levels.

Conclusions

Inequity in EMHS allocation is demonstrated by the wide range of funding allocations per patient and the corresponding disparities in medicines availability. We show that using patient load to calculate EMHS allocations has the potential to improve equity significantly. However, more research in this area is urgently needed.

Trial registration

The article does not report any results of human participants. It is implemented in collaboration with the Uganda’s Ministry of Health, Pharmacy Division.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1698-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.