RESUMEN
Common goods such as air, water, climate, and other resources shared by all humanity are under increasing pressure from growing population and advancing globalization of the world economy. Safeguarding these resources is generally considered a government responsibility, as common goods are vulnerable to market failure. However, governments do not always fulfill this role, and face many challenges in doing so. This observation-that governments only sometimes address common goods problems-informs the central question of this paper: when do governments act in support of common goods? We structure our inquiry using a framework derived from three theories of agenda setting, emphasizing problem perception, the role of actors and collective action patterns, strategies and policies, and catalyzing circumstances. We used a poll of experts to identify important common goods for health: disease surveillance, environmental protection, and accountability. We then chose four historical cases for analysis: the establishment of the Epidemic Intelligence Service in the US, transport planning in London, road safety in Argentina, and air quality control in urban India. Our analysis of the collective evidence of these cases suggests that decisions to advance government action on common goods require a concisely articulated problem, a well-defined strategy for addressing the problem, and leadership backed by at least a few important groups willing to cooperate. Our cases reveal a variety of collective action patterns, suggesting that there are many routes to success. We consider that the timing of an intervention in support of common goods depends on favorable circumstances, which can include a catalyzing event but does not necessarily require one.
Asunto(s)
Contaminación del Aire/efectos adversos , Vigilancia de la Población/métodos , Argentina , Programas de Gobierno/normas , Programas de Gobierno/tendencias , Humanos , India , Londres , Seguridad/legislación & jurisprudencia , Seguridad/normas , Justicia Social , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Prompted by the 20th anniversary of the 1993 World Development Report, a Lancet Commission revisited the case for investment in health and developed a new investment framework to achieve dramatic health gains by 2035. The Commission's report has four key messages, each accompanied by opportunities for action by national governments of low-income and middle-income countries and by the international community. First, there is an enormous economic payoff from investing in health. The impressive returns make a strong case for both increased domestic financing of health and for allocating a higher proportion of official development assistance to development of health. Second, modeling by the Commission found that a "grand convergence" in health is achievable by 2035-that is, a reduction in infectious, maternal, and child mortality down to universally low levels. Convergence would require aggressive scale up of existing and new health tools, and it could mostly be financed from the expected economic growth of low- and middle-income countries. The international community can best support convergence by funding the development and delivery of new health technologies and by curbing antibiotic resistance. Third, fiscal policies -such as taxation of tobacco and alcohol- are a powerful and underused lever that governments can use to curb non-communicable diseases and injuries while also raising revenue for health. International action on NCDs and injuries should focus on providing technical assistance on fiscal policies, regional cooperation on tobacco, and funding policy and implementation research on scaling-up of interventions to tackle these conditions. Fourth, progressive universalism, a pathway to universal health coverage (UHC) that includes the poor from the outset, is an efficient way to achieve health and financial risk protection. For national governments, progressive universalism would yield high health gains per dollar spent and poor people would gain the most in terms of health and financial protection. The international community can best support countries to implement progressive UHC by financing policy and implementation research, such as on the mechanics of designing and implementing evolution of the benefits package as the resource envelope for public finance grows.
Asunto(s)
Salud Global , Salud Pública , Planificación en Salud Comunitaria , Países en Desarrollo , Financiación Gubernamental , Organización de la Financiación , Objetivos , Política de Salud , Promoción de la Salud , Humanos , Cooperación Internacional , Inversiones en Salud , Servicios Preventivos de Salud , Cobertura Universal del Seguro de SaludRESUMEN
Con motivo del 20º aniversario del Informe sobre el Desarrollo Mundial 1993, una Comisión de la revista The Lancet reconsideró el argumento a favor de la inversión en salud y desarrolló un nuevo marco de inversión para lograr mejoras dramáticas en materia de salud para el año 2035. El informe de la Comisión contiene cuatro mensajes clave, cada uno acompañado de oportunidades para los gobiernos nacionales de países de ingresos bajos y medios y para la comunidad internacional. En primer lugar, invertir en salud acarrea enormes rendimientos económicos. Las impresionantes ganancias son un fuerte argumento a favor de un aumento en el financiamiento nacional de la salud y de asignar una mayor proporción de la asistencia oficial al desarrollo de la salud. En segundo lugar, en el modelo creado por la Comisión se encontró que es posible lograr para el año 2035 una "gran convergencia" en salud, consistente en la reducción de las tasas de mortalidad materna, infantil y por infecciones a niveles universalmente bajos. Tal convergencia requeriría la ampliación de las herramientas de salud existentes y un incremento agresivo de nuevas herramientas, y podría ser financiada en su mayor parte con recursos derivados del crecimiento económico esperado de los países de ingresos bajos y medios. La mejor manera en que la comunidad internacional puede apoyar la convergencia es financiando el desarrollo y suministro de nuevas tecnologías de salud, y frenando la resistencia a los antibióticos. En tercer lugar, las políticas fiscales -tales como los impuestos al tabaco y al alcohol- son una palanca poderosa y subutilizada que los gobiernos pueden emplear para detener el avance de las enfermedades no transmisibles (ENT) y las lesiones, a la vez que elevan los ingresos públicos para la salud. La acción internacional sobre las ENT y lesiones debería enfocarse en proporcionar asistencia técnica sobre políticas fiscales, en cooperación regional para el combate al tabaquismo y en financiar investigación sobre políticas e implementación para ampliar las intervenciones que enfrenten estos problemas. En cuarto lugar, la universalización progresiva -una vía hacia la cobertura universal de salud (CUS) que incluya desde el comienzo a los pobres- es una manera eficiente de lograr la protección a la salud contra riesgos financieros. Para los gobiernos nacionales, la universalización progresiva produciría elevadas ganancias en salud por cada dólar que se gaste en ésta, y los pobres serían quienes más ganarían en términos tanto de salud como de protección financiera. La mejor manera en que la comunidad internacional puede brindar apoyo a los países para implementar una CUS progresiva es financiando la investigación sobre políticas e implementación, por ejemplo, sobre la mecánica del diseño e instrumentación de la evolución del paquete de beneficios conforme crezca el presupuesto para las finanzas públicas.
Prompted by the 20th anniversary of the 1993 World Development Report, a Lancet Commission revisited the case for investment in health and developed a new investment framework to achieve dramatic health gains by 2035. The Commission's report has four key messages, each accompanied by opportunities for action by national governments of low-income and middle-income countries and by the international community. First, there is an enormous economic payoff from investing in health. The impressive returns make a strong case for both increased domestic financing of health and for allocating a higher proportion of official development assistance to development of health. Second, modeling by the Commission found that a "grand convergence" in health is achievable by 2035-that is, a reduction in infectious, maternal, and child mortality down to universally low levels. Convergence would require aggressive scale up of existing and new health tools, and it could mostly be financed from the expected economic growth of low- and middle-income countries. The international community can best support convergence by funding the development and delivery of new health technologies and by curbing antibiotic resistance. Third, fiscal policies -such as taxation of tobacco and alcohol- are a powerful and underused lever that governments can use to curb non-communicable diseases and injuries while also raising revenue for health. International action on NCDs and injuries should focus on providing technical assistance on fiscal policies, regional cooperation on tobacco, and funding policy and implementation research on scaling-up of interventions to tackle these conditions. Fourth, progressive universalism, a pathway to universal health coverage (UHC) that includes the poor from the outset, is an efficient way to achieve health and financial risk protection. For national governments, progressive universalism would yield high health gains per dollar spent and poor people would gain the most in terms of health and financial protection. The international community can best support countries to implement progressive UHC by financing policy and implementation research, such as on the mechanics of designing and implementing evolution of the benefits package as the resource envelope for public finance grows.