Search

Despite the existence of cost effective interventions to reduce harmful use of alcohol, many countries are not giving it the attention it deserves, say Dag Rekve and colleagues

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are a broad challenge for decision-makers. NCDs account for seven out of every 10 deaths globally, with 42 percent occurring prematurely in individuals under age 70. Despite their heavy toll, NCDs are underfunded, with only around two percent of global funding dedicated to the disease set. Country governments are responsible for funding targeted actions to reduce the NCD burden, but among other priorities, many have yet to invest in the health-system interventions and policy measures that can reduce the burden. This article examines “investment cases” as a potential mechanism for catalyzing attention to—and funding for—NCDs. In Jamaica, using the UN inter-agency OneHealth Tool, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the return-on-investment from scaling up strategic clinical interventions, and from implementing or intensifying policy measures that target NCD risk factors. In addition, we conducted an institutional and context (ICA) analysis, interviewing stakeholders across sectors to take stock of promising policy pathways (e.g., areas of general consensus, political appetite and opportunity) as well as challenges to implementation. The economic analysis found that scaling up clinical interventions that target CVD, diabetes, and mental health disorders, and policy measures that target tobacco and alcohol use, would save over 6,600 lives between 2017–2032, and avert JMD 81.3 billion (USD 640 million) in direct and indirect economic costs that result from mortality and morbidity linked to NCDs. The ICA uncovered government economic growth targets and social priorities that would be aided by increased attention to NCDs, and it linked these targets and priorities to the economic analysis.

Economic analysis of interventions to reduce non-communicable diseases can encourage countries to increase investment, say Melanie Bertram and colleagues

In this article, we highlight key considerations for better addressing sexual and reproductive health and rights issues within universal health coverage (UHC), particularly in the context of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. We look at UHC as a health, development and health care financing issue, and its history. We discuss its limitations as currently understood from a human rights perspective, and show why structural barriers to health and the legal and policy environment, which are essential to health (particularly to sexual and reproductive health and rights), require critical consideration in current discussions about health in the post-2015 development framework and must be taken into account above and beyond UHC in any future health goal. As a result, we suggest that UHC alone will not result in universal access to sexual and reproductive health, and certainly not to sexual and reproductive rights. Instead, it should be considered as a means to achieving broader health and development goals. A goal such as seeking to reach the highest attainable standard of health or maximizing healthy lives that is informed by a rights-based approach should be the aspiration for the post-2015 development agenda.