14 Conclusion Flashcards
Overview Summary
This session brings together material from across this module to help you understand the distinct nature of global health policy making, what actors are involved, and what processes are engaged in furthering collective action. After reviewing the key concepts and frameworks, in relation to the issues covered in this module, we will consolidate your learning by discussing evaluation and good governance principles as two ways of strengthening global health policy making.
Overview Aims
The aims of this session are to provide you with a summary of the key concepts covered in this module, as they apply to specific issues in global health, and to understand the role of evaluation and good governance principles in strengthening global health policy making.
Overview Learning objectives
By the end of this session you should be able: to reflect on the concepts described in Session 1 (Introduction) and how they apply to the issues covered in this module; to understand the distinct nature of policy making within a global context; to apply an evaluation framework for improving policy making to a given global health issue; to understand the criteria for assessing what is “good” global policy including effective global health governance; and to draw lessons from across the module on the challenges of strengthening global health policy making.
Key terms formative evaluation
A type of policy evaluation which assesses the operations of a programme at a relatively early stage, while activities are forming, for the purpose of improving the programme and its implementation (Limbani et al., 2019).
Key terms goal evaluation
A type of evaluation which assesses the extent a goal set by a policy is desirable, appropriate or feasible (Fischer and Morgenstern, 2008).
Key terms good governance
A set of principles to assess how well public institutions conduct public affairs and manage public resources including transparency, accountability, representativeness, effectiveness and the rule of law (Kickbusch and Gleicher, 2012).
Key terms impact/outcome evaluation
A type of evaluation which assesses the broader intended or unintended consequences of a policy beyond an agreed goal (Fischer and Morgenstern, 2008).
Key terms policy evaluation
A systematic process for assessing the design, implementation and outcomes of public policies (Mookerji and Meck, 2015).
Key terms process evaluation
An assessment of whether the adoption and implementation of a policy decision has been carried out in accordance with agreed or appropriate procedures (Limbani et al., 2019).
Key terms summative evaluation
A type of policy evaluation which seeks to determine the extent to which a policy achieved its intended goals (Limbani et al., 2019).
1 What is ‘Global’ about Global Health Policy?
In Session 1, you were introduced to a framework that sets out what is global about a global policy. In this section, we will briefly review the key concepts related to this framework and how they apply to several of the issues covered in this module.
1.1 Summary of Key Concepts
Let’s begin by reviewing three basic concepts from Session 1
1.1 Summary of Key Concepts Policy
can be defined as a “broad statement of goals, objectives and means that create the framework for activity” which translates the intentions of government into action. Policy can often take the form of explicit written documents but may sometimes be implicit or unwritten (Buse et al. 2012).
1.1 Summary of Key Concepts Public policy
is A decision made by a publicly elected or designated body which is deemed to be in the public (as opposed to private) or common interest (Soroos, 1991).
1.1 Summary of Key Concepts Health policy
is a type of public policy concerned with principles or rules to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s) that affect the set of institutions, organizations, services and funding arrangements of the health system. This includes policies of both the public and private sectors, as well as health and non-health sectors (Buse et al., 2012).
1.1 Summary of Key Concepts
You will also recall the framework put forth by the Global Policy Journal which describes how public policy has become “global” (Figure 14.1). If we apply these concepts and framework to some of the health issues covered in this core module, how do they measure up? To what extent do they concern global health policy making?
1.1 Summary of Key Concepts Six components of global policy
1 Globally relevant risks and collective acton problems, 2 International policy coordination, 3a) normative theories of global governance and it’s reform 3b) competing discourses of global governance, 4 The shift from national level to bloc level, 5 The shift from unipolar to multipolar governance, 6 Innovations in global governance
1.2 Pandemic Diseases
The emergence and spread of a pathogen, for which there is limited or no immunity in human populations, poses a globally relevant risk. Pathogenicity (capacity to cause disease), virulence (capacity to cause severe or harmful illness) and transmissibility (capacity to be passed on from one organism to another) vary across different pathogens, determining the degree of global risk posed. Applied to influenza viruses, for example, the H1N1 outbreak in 2009 proved to be highly pathogenic and transmissible, but not highly virulent (i.e. causing severe illness) for most people. In contrast, between 2003-2020, there have been 861 reported human cases of the highly pathogenic and virulent H5N1 avian influenza virus across 17 countries, resulting in 455 deaths (53% case fatality rate) (WHO, 2020b). To date, H5N1 has not been highly transmissible from person-to-person. Preparing for the worse-case scenario of pandemic influenzas, namely a highly pathogenic, virulent and transmissible virus, such as during the 1918-20 pandemic, which caused between 50-100 million deaths worldwide, is a clear collective action problem within and across countries. While not as pathogenic or virulent as the H5N1 influenza virus, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 which emerged in 2019, causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, illustrates how severe public health and wider societal impacts can still be from viruses with low pathogenicity (~80% of people develop mild or asymptomatic cases) and moderate to medium transmissibility (based on information available to date) (Chen, 2020). As of June 2020, there have been over 7 million reported cases causing more than 400,000 deaths worldwide (WHO, 2020a). The economic and social impacts have been widespread and profound.
1.2 Pandemic Diseases
The risks of pandemics, from influenza and other types of viruses, has led to closer international policy coordination via such initiatives as the WHO-based Global Influenza Surveillance Network. Coordinated by WHO, the network is underpinned by an international network of collaborating centres and national/regional influenza centres. Internationally agreed national pandemic preparedness plans have been developed by many governments based on WHO guidelines. Since the 1990s, efforts have been made to improve fragmentation in public health surveillance systems for emerging diseases, notably zoonotic diseases, through such initiatives as WHO’s Global Outbreak and Alert Network, Healthmap.org and One Health initiatives led by WHO, Food and Agriculture Organization and World Organization for Animal Health (Morse et al. 2012).
1.2 Pandemic Diseases
Vaccine development and treatment with anti-viral drugs have been historically approached from a largely biomedical perspective, with disease surveillance primarily serving the purpose of providing data on circulating strains for vaccine and drug development. However, in 2007, the Indonesian government objected to being obliged to share virus samples with the global health community. It argued that Indonesia, along with other LMICs, would not in return have equitable access to vaccines developed from such samples by private pharmaceutical companies due to affordability and availability.
1.2 Pandemic Diseases
The debate revealed competing discourses or normative theories about global governance. Amid concerns about equity and fairness, efforts were made to ensure benefits sharing. However, how these benefits should be created and shared remain points of debate, with policy positions on a bloc level (coalition of diverse actors) not yet formed.
1.2 Pandemic Diseases
There has been support for reform of the Global Influenza Surveillance Network amid dispute over the norms or values underpinning collective action. A neoliberal-based model leaves the development and distribution of vaccines and anti-virals to the competitive market of pharmaceutical companies. In contrast, a communitarian approach argues that access should be based on need, rather than ability to pay for such drugs. Recognising the dependence of vaccine development on virus samples, and the benefits of ring-fencing outbreaks at an early stage, public health advocates have made efforts to find innovative solutions in global governance. The agreement of the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, which came into effect in 2011, represents an effort to find a compromise among the above normative theories by integrating market-based and equity principles.
1.3 HIV/AIDS
The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which can lead to the disease acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), poses a globally relevant risk because of the scale of the pandemic caused and the cross-border spread through the effects of population mobility. The number of people living with HIV/AIDS has grown from 8 million in 1990 to around 37.9 million in 2018, affecting all regions of the world. As a result, the issue has elicited extensive international policy coordination for prevention, control and treatment of the disease. For example, collective efforts have been focused over the past two decade on expanding access to anti-retroviral (ARV) treatment, especially in low and middle-income countries and among those affected by poverty.
1.3 HIV/AIDS
International cooperation on HIV/AIDS, from the 1980s onwards, has been characterized by differences in normative theories regarding HIV/AIDS, with competing discourses regarding the global governance of HIV/AIDS. This has broadly taken the form of tensions between a focus on the biomedical aspects of the disease, and recognition of the broader links between HIV/AIDS and human rights, poverty and equity. The prominence of civil society organizations, notably people living with AIDS, in advocating for increased research and action on HIV/AIDS worldwide successfully shifted policy making from the national to multi bloc level (Smith et al. 2017).