DRASTIC CUT IN HEALTH ALLOCATION
02 December 2016
02 December 2016
Among many criticisms regarding the Budget 2017, one of the major ones was the reduction of the allocations to the Health Ministry. According to the Draft Budget estimates 2017, the allocations for the Health Ministry were reduced from Rs 175 billion in 2016 to Rs 160 billion. A more concerning factor is that the capital expenditure had reduced from Rs 60 billion to Rs 40 billion reflecting less development in the health sector in 2017.
When the Budget Speech 2017 and the Economic Policy statement made by the Prime Minister this year and last year are closely analyzed it can be easily noticed that the emphasis given to the health sector is very little. In fact, in none of these important speeches, are the government objectives regarding the expected achievements of the health sector are mentioned while they specifically mention about exports, education, Higher Education, Trade, and so on.
This by no means a scenario that can be ignored. The matter has to be taken up seriously. Although politicians boast about free health in the country in many State hospitals in the country, two patients have to share a bed. Sometimes, a patient who was operated on has to share a bed with someone due to inadequacy of the physical resources.
Accordingly, the government only allocates 4.7 per cent from its total expenditure to the health sector which is a very low percentage compared to the allocations made by other countries. According to the World Bank, Costa Rica spends 26.5 per cent of its total expenditure to the health sector. In France, the percentage is 15.6, in India it's 4.4 per cent, in Japan it's 19.7 per cent, in Nepal it's 16 per cent, in the UK it's 16.2 per cent and in the US it's 19.5 per cent.
The allocations for the health sector as a percentage of the GDP has also declined in Sri Lanka. Assuming that the GDP in Sri Lanka grows by 5 per cent, the allocations for the Health Ministry would amount to 1.4 per cent of the GDP in 2016 and will be expected to decline to 1.2 per cent of the GDP.
Statistics shows that the allocations for the health sector as a percentage of the GDP is higher in other countries. However, it should be noted that it also includes the private spending on the health sector as well. For example, this is reflected in Bangladesh as 2.8 per cent of the GDP, in India it's 4.7 per cent, in Japan it's 10.2 per cent, in the Netherlands it's 10.9 per cent, in the UK it's 9.1 per cent and in the US it's 17.1 per cent.
Accordingly, Sri Lanka's expenditure on health (both public and private) was around 3.2 per cent of GDP, or US$ 89 per head in 2012, according to estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO). Interestingly, the private sector provides around one-half of outpatient curative care and around 5 – 10 per cent of inpatient care. In most instances, the expenses are from the pocket of individuals, as insurance cover is not prominent in Sri Lanka. It should be noted that people often tend to go for private healthcare as public healthcare is time consuming as well as inconvenient. Further, more often than not the public healthcare system does not provide all the medicines and medi-care required.
Hence, patients end up paying a considerable amount of money to purchase prescribed drugs. The Health Minister can cover the bitter truth by saying that prices of the drugs had reduced, but reduction of allocations to health sector is certainly an obstacle for human development.
At any given day, decrease of funds allocated to the health sector is not acceptable. Through a quality free health system, every segment of the society would benefit, which is not the case in every other sector. Health has more redistribution effect, thereby the common man always tends to benefit.
In Sri Lanka, there is a dearth of more than 25,000 nurses and 2,500 doctors. Although, free health exists for namesake it is really a question whether the public receives a quality health service. Reducing funds to the health sector, in that context will hurt the common man further, while the government spends millions of rupees to provide treatment for politicians.
When the Budget Speech 2017 and the Economic Policy statement made by the Prime Minister this year and last year are closely analyzed it can be easily noticed that the emphasis given to the health sector is very little. In fact, in none of these important speeches, are the government objectives regarding the expected achievements of the health sector are mentioned while they specifically mention about exports, education, Higher Education, Trade, and so on.
This by no means a scenario that can be ignored. The matter has to be taken up seriously. Although politicians boast about free health in the country in many State hospitals in the country, two patients have to share a bed. Sometimes, a patient who was operated on has to share a bed with someone due to inadequacy of the physical resources.
Accordingly, the government only allocates 4.7 per cent from its total expenditure to the health sector which is a very low percentage compared to the allocations made by other countries. According to the World Bank, Costa Rica spends 26.5 per cent of its total expenditure to the health sector. In France, the percentage is 15.6, in India it's 4.4 per cent, in Japan it's 19.7 per cent, in Nepal it's 16 per cent, in the UK it's 16.2 per cent and in the US it's 19.5 per cent.
The allocations for the health sector as a percentage of the GDP has also declined in Sri Lanka. Assuming that the GDP in Sri Lanka grows by 5 per cent, the allocations for the Health Ministry would amount to 1.4 per cent of the GDP in 2016 and will be expected to decline to 1.2 per cent of the GDP.
Statistics shows that the allocations for the health sector as a percentage of the GDP is higher in other countries. However, it should be noted that it also includes the private spending on the health sector as well. For example, this is reflected in Bangladesh as 2.8 per cent of the GDP, in India it's 4.7 per cent, in Japan it's 10.2 per cent, in the Netherlands it's 10.9 per cent, in the UK it's 9.1 per cent and in the US it's 17.1 per cent.
Accordingly, Sri Lanka's expenditure on health (both public and private) was around 3.2 per cent of GDP, or US$ 89 per head in 2012, according to estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO). Interestingly, the private sector provides around one-half of outpatient curative care and around 5 – 10 per cent of inpatient care. In most instances, the expenses are from the pocket of individuals, as insurance cover is not prominent in Sri Lanka. It should be noted that people often tend to go for private healthcare as public healthcare is time consuming as well as inconvenient. Further, more often than not the public healthcare system does not provide all the medicines and medi-care required.
Hence, patients end up paying a considerable amount of money to purchase prescribed drugs. The Health Minister can cover the bitter truth by saying that prices of the drugs had reduced, but reduction of allocations to health sector is certainly an obstacle for human development.
At any given day, decrease of funds allocated to the health sector is not acceptable. Through a quality free health system, every segment of the society would benefit, which is not the case in every other sector. Health has more redistribution effect, thereby the common man always tends to benefit.
In Sri Lanka, there is a dearth of more than 25,000 nurses and 2,500 doctors. Although, free health exists for namesake it is really a question whether the public receives a quality health service. Reducing funds to the health sector, in that context will hurt the common man further, while the government spends millions of rupees to provide treatment for politicians.
Economic growth or economic development does not merely mean increase of the GDP. Such development would benefit the people of the country, not a small segment of the society. To put it in simple terms, what is the point of development if a sick person dies on the road?
Noble Prize Winner Prof. Amartya Sen had highly appreciated the efforts of Sri Lanka to preserve free health. Sen argued that the goal of economic growth and increases in per capita income is to achieve human development. Therefore, he said, human development is more important than economic growth, and he citied Sri Lanka as one of the major successful countries which gained human development through a free health system. However, it appears that the present government and its so called economic experts had forgotten what it is meant by development.