What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Global Health Policy Priorities?

Disadvantages of the current system

Despite these benefits, the present level of control that funding bodies and donors have over priorities limits the input that global health need has in the decision-making algorithm. Although there are a multitude of global health players, if calculated by resource allocation, a small number of wealthy donors set the majority of global health priorities (31) which reduces the opportunity for empirically determined need for a program to be factored into the discussion. The major disparity between the priorities set by global health actors and need is exemplified in Rwanda where the local government highlighted the disproportionately high funding targeted at HIV/AIDs when the nation only had a 3% infection rate (2, 32). Under such guidance, long-term prioritisation, particularly with those issues where outcomes are difficult to measure, is rare. Long-term funding is

Here, this has been demonstrated by the examination of the problem, politics and policy streams which have brought health systems strengthening efforts to attention in recent years, but has not attracted large-scale dedication to the issue. In fact, commitment to HSS has largely been restricted within the disease-specific interests of the major donors. Furthermore, the recent global financial recession resulted in economic concerns taking precedence over health systems strengthening. It is argued here, that priorities driven by funding, in present state, fosters inefficiency and inequality where resources are not allocated to where they are needed most. A superior system would be one in which the power of major donors is constrained or their interests are altered so as to ensure that global health need is the basis of policy