"More money for health - more health for the money": a human resources for health perspective
"More money for health - more health for the money": a human resources for health perspective
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1478-4491-9-18
复制
发表时间：
2011-07-15
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Whyms, Desmond
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Campbell, James;Jones, Iain;Whyms, Desmond
背景：在2010年9月的千年发展目标首脑会议上，联合国秘书长启动了《全球妇女和儿童健康战略》。《全球战略》的核心目标是“更多的钱用于卫生”和“花钱买更多的卫生”。这些措施旨在为卫生筹资调动更多资源，同时从现有资源中产生更多成果-公共支出管理和治理的核心原则。本文认为，这些野心从人力资源的健康（HRH）perspectives.Methods：使用数据从英国国际发展部（DFID），我们开始量化和限定英国政府的贡献HRH在发展中国家，并建立一个基线。为了确定活动和资金是否可以纳入“加强卫生人力资源”的类别，我们采用了《卫生人力资源全球行动议程》和世卫组织关于卫生工作者“工作寿命”的方法作为我们的指导框架。为了建立一个基线，我们审查了现有的官方发展援助（ODA）和国家报告的数据，进行了一项新的调查，人力资源卫生规划，并寻求多边partners.Results的信息：在2008/9财政年度，国际发展部花费了9.01亿英镑的直接“健康援助”。由于经济合作与发展组织（经合组织）债权人报告制度的性质，直接报告人力资源支出是不可行的。因此，我们采用了一个估算百分比的过程，并在12个国家进行了详细的评估。这是按照八国集团采用的模式估算用于孕产妇、新生儿和儿童保健的官方发展援助。使用八国集团的模型，并认识到其局限性，我们得出的结论是，英国“援助卫生”对HRH加强约25%.Conclusions：在量化DFID的支付HRH，我们遇到了目前的CRS框架的限制。这限制了对HRH的官方发展援助的标准化测量。这是一个治理问题，将受益于在劳动力科学、监督和战略情报等更全面的方案中进行的进一步分析。妇女和儿童健康信息和问责委员会可能提供一个机会，部分解决向人权和卫生部门报告官方发展援助的局限性，并提出建立全球基线的解决办法。
Background: At the MDG Summit in September 2010, the UN Secretary-General launched the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health. Central within the Global Strategy are the ambitions of "more money for health" and "more health for the money". These aim to leverage more resources for health financing whilst simultaneously generating more results from existing resources-core tenets of public expenditure management and governance. This paper considers these ambitions from a human resources for health (HRH) perspective.Methods: Using data from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) we set out to quantify and qualify the British government's contributions on HRH in developing countries and to establish a baseline. To determine whether activities and financing could be included in the categorisation of 'HRH strengthening' we adopted the Agenda for Global Action on HRH and a WHO approach to the 'working lifespan' of health workers as our guiding frameworks. To establish a baseline we reviewed available data on Official Development Assistance (ODA) and country reports, undertook a new survey of HRH programming and sought information from multilateral partners.Results: In financial year 2008/9 DFID spent 901 pound million on direct 'aid to health'. Due to the nature of the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) it is not feasible to directly report on HRH spending. We therefore employed a process of imputed percentages supported by detailed assessment in twelve countries. This followed the model adopted by the G8 to estimate ODA on maternal, newborn and child health. Using the G8's model, and cognisant of its limitations, we concluded that UK ` aid to health' on HRH strengthening is approximately 25%.Conclusions: In quantifying DFID's disbursements on HRH we encountered the constraints of the current CRS framework. This limits standardised measurement of ODA on HRH. This is a governance issue that will benefit from further analysis within more comprehensive programmes of workforce science, surveillance and strategic intelligence. The Commission on Information and Accountability for Women's and Children's Health may present an opportunity to partially address the limitations in reporting on ODA for HRH and present solutions to establish a global baseline.