10 Can we reconcile horizontal versus vertical approaches to global health? Flashcards
Heading Subheading
Text
Overview Summary
Welcome to this session on horizontal versus vertical approaches to global health. In this session, you will be introduced to the debate between the horizontal and the vertical approach to programming and how it relates to funding and disease burden in low- and middle- income countries. You will learn about the historical background that led to this dichotomy and the main actors supporting each approach. Finally, some alternatives to these two approaches will be presented. Programming is an issue in all nations, but we will focus on the situation in low and middle-income countries where disease burdens tend to be higher since there is greater need for strategic planning to deal with diseases that claim a large number of lives.
Overview Aims
This session aims to provide students with an understanding of the distinction between horizontal and vertical approaches, how this longstanding debate is relevant to global health development, and how it continues to inform collective efforts to tackle global health needs.
Overview Learning outcomes
By the end of this session you should be able to: Differentiate between vertical and horizontal approaches to health development, their strengths and weaknesses; Identify how these approaches have informed key health development initiatives over time; Discuss which institutional actors have advocated these approaches and why; Understand how the debate has influenced global health policy and the emergence of the “diagonal” approach; and Critically evaluate which approach might be the most pertinent for a particular context within global health.
Key terms Vertical approach
The selective targeting of specific interventions not fully integrated in health systems (Msuya, 2004).
Key terms Health system
All organisations, people and actions whose primary intent is to promote, restore or maintain health (WHO 2007).
Key terms Horizontal approach
The approach that seeks to tackle the over-all health problems on a wide front and on a long-term basis (Gonzalez 1965).
Key terms Diagonal approach
Strategy that aims for disease-specific results through improved health systems (Ooms et al. 2008).
Key terms Global health initiatives
a standard model for financing and implementing disease control programs in various countries and in different regions of the world (Brugha 2008).
Key terms Sector-wide approaches
A programme where all significant funding for the sector supports a single sector policy and expenditure programme, under government leadership, adopting common approaches across the sector, and progressing towards relying on government procedures to disburse and account for all funds (Foster 2000).
1.1 Historical background
The Alma Ata Declaration on Primary Health Care signed in 1978 provided the starting point for collective action towards achieving primary health care. Building on a World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 1977 to achieve health for all by the year 2000, this agreement took place during the international conference on primary health care and was signed by 134 countries, 67 UN organisations and NGOs. The main premise of the declaration was for all people to have access to basic health care, with primary health care including access to education, methods for preventing and controlling health problems, food supply and nutrition, family planning, immunization, access to safe water and basic sanitation, maternal and child health, provision of essential drugs, etc. But shortly after the health care officials were left with the question of how to achieve these lofty goals?
1.1 Historical background
One year after Alma Ata, a group of researchers proposed Selective primary health care, an “interim” strategy to begin the process of primary health care implementation. They argued that the best way to improve health was to fight disease based on cost-effective medical interventions that can save and improve lives immediately. They identified four factors to guide the selection of target diseases for prevention and treatment: prevalence, morbidity, mortality, and feasibility of control (including efficacy and cost). Early applications of this included child immunisation, infectious disease programs and oral rehydration therapy, all of which seemed to have a simple solution at the time. The motivation behind this was that successful interventions, with proven results would encourage more investment from donors, thereby ensuring sustainable programmes.
1.1 Historical background
By the 1990s it was already evident that the view of achievement of health for all by 2000 was not that optimistic. Furthermore, the policies promoted by the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other bilateral aid agencies lead to downsizing of governments, privatization or services and decentralization. Specifically, in the health sector, this meant managed competition, the creation of the public-private mix, cost recovery and prioritizing cost-effective interventions. Countries were encouraged to make government less of an actor in health, thereby making their health systems leaner. The WHO on the other hand, had a small role in this since at the time it was hampered by weak leadership and was overwhelmed by the wide range of health programmes it had attempted to fulfil its broad mandate.
1.1 Historical background
The WB and other international development banks were taking more leadership as lenders to the health sector and there was little confidence that WHO’s approach to health for all was that effective. The following years were characterised by a worsening of international health with a greater gap between the rich and the poor, one billion people with lack of access to water and sanitation and a growth in the HIV/AIDS cases, as well as Tuberculosis (TB) becoming more of an international emergency. The election of Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1997 brought renewed hopes that WHO’s role would increase in global health. Her legacy has been in restructuring WHO by focusing on developing core values a clear marketing strategy in an increasingly crowded development environment. WHO subsequently adopted the Roll Back Malaria and Tobacco Free Initiative as their flagship initiatives; the organization was divided into clusters and attention was given to developing evidence to support the work.
1.1 Historical background
The proliferation of Public-Private Partnerships in the early 2000s was supported by fears of emerging and re-emerging diseases such as HIV/AIDS and TB that potentially threaten high-income countries, as well as the risk of bioterrorism. Dr. Jong Lee was elected Director-General of WHO in 2003, as Dr. Brundtland’s successor. Although he acknowledged the dichotomy between health for all and donor-led initiatives, he declared communicable diseases (especially HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria) as his priorities. He argued that progress towards Alma Ata had been great, but that much more efforts should be put towards AIDS. The entry of Dr. Margaret Chan and then her predecessor Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the current Director-General at WHO, marked a focus on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Chan’s main priorities consisted on promoting maternal and child health and more focus has been put on addressing health systems. Dr. Ghebreyesus’ stated priorities have been achieving the SDGs via a focus on achieving universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health care services, and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all (WHO, 2017).
1.2 The health system
In simple terms, vertical and horizontal programming approaches consist of two different ways you can address a health issue. This necessarily requires interacting with the health system, which is the space where these approaches are implemented. But what is a health system? According to the WHO, the health system “consists of all organisations, people and actions whose primary intent is to promote, restore or maintain health” (WHO, 2007). WHO subdivides the health system into various components, or building blocks, as this image shows. These building blocks are governance, information, financing, service delivery, human resources, medicines and technologies and people.
1.2 The health system
As this framework shows, people are at the centre of the health system continuously interacting with the different blocks. The other building blocks are briefly explained below: 1 Leadership and governance primarily involve steering the entire health sector and dealing with challenges; and defining national health policies, strategy and plans that set a clear direction of the health sector. 2 The health information systems entail a national monitoring and evaluation system plan that specifies core indicators (with targets), data collection and management, analyses and communication and use; and making information accessible to all involved, including communities, civil society, health professionals and politicians. 3 The health financing block involves a system to raise sufficient funds for health fairly; a system to pool financial resources across population groups to share financial risks; and a system supported by relevant legislation, financial audit and public expenditure reviews and clear operational rules to ensure efficient use of funds. 4 Human resources for health require ensuring sufficient numbers of human resources and the right mix; developing appropriate payment systems and incentives; and regulatory mechanisms and enabling work environments. 5 Medicines and technologies involves creating a medical products regulatory system; creating and managing a supply and distribution system that works; and developing a price monitoring system and rational prescribing mechanisms. 6 Service delivery entails networks of close-to-client primary care and developing mechanisms for accountability.
1.2 The health system
As we will see in the following sections, vertical and horizontal approaches interact with the health system in different ways. A vertical approach works by targeting specific interventions that are not fully integrated in health systems, whereas the horizontal approach provides a more holistic approach to addressing health issues by bringing together common functions within and between organisations.
2 Vertical approach
Msuya (2004) provides a straightforward way of describing vertical programmes as the ‘selective targeting of specific interventions not fully integrated in health systems’. Examples of the success of vertical programs can be found since the 1920s where great strides were made in the control of hookworm, yellow fever and malaria. The latter in regions outside southern Africa. After the success of these mass campaigns came others such as the eradication of smallpox and decrease in tuberculosis cases worldwide and decrease in TB cases worldwide.
2 Vertical approach
Moreover, HIV/AIDS is a clear example of how a targeted approach to a disease can lead to success in reducing the incidence of a disease. HIV/AIDS has notably changed from an epidemic emergency to a manageable chronic disease. In addition, these focused programs have also contributed to improving the access to low-cost pharmaceuticals for low-income countries, especially for HIV/AIDS drugs.
2 Vertical approach
Among some of the benefits of the vertical approach, we can identify: 1 This approach to programming is most useful in highly constrained countries, such as countries in conflict, with poor governance due to corruption or other reasons. At the same time, it is in these areas that measures are required to strengthen and develop the capacity of health systems. 2 It produces rapid and easily measurable results. 3 It fosters the engagement of stakeholders that may have been previously ignored within the countries, such as NGOs of survivors of these diseases. 4 Donors prefer this type of program because it establishes a tangible program that is easy to recognise and to promote to other outside sources as a clear example of work. 5 Money goes towards one source, making program monitoring easier; although, in practice this does not always happen. 6 Some of these programmes have been implemented in areas where little was known about the burden of disease. The presence of these programmes has increased the availability of data and research in these places.
2 Vertical approach
Among the criticisms of vertical programming we find: 1 It ignores social and economic factors related with health since they tend to follow the goals of the programme rather than the realities on the ground. Vertical programmes are frequently developed by people who are unaware of the context these programmes are being implemented in or they follow political or other motivations. 2 There is little coordination leading to duplication and imposing administrative burdens on already overworked health care workers. 3 The creation of parallel programs which undermine the efforts of the government and how external impositions may refocus government priorities, ignoring areas that may have greater needs in the country, such as diarrheal or respiratory diseases. 4 It may take up the country’s scarce human resources, by hiring local capacity with higher salaries, making it difficult for the government to keep these workers.
2.1 The role of global agreements on health programming
As we saw in the previous section, aid has had a tremendous effect on the direction of programming in low and middle-income countries, since quite often they sustain the entire countries’ response to a certain disease. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a grouping of 8 goals that were established in 2000 in the Millennium Summit of the United Nations and that were signed by all 191 UN member states, spurred substantial growth in global funding for health but they were also criticised for promoting a vertical approach.
2.1 The role of global agreements on health programming
These goals primarily focused on disease-specific programs (namely HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, which had their own separate goal) without integration into broader health systems strengthening.