Before the Budget, hopes for public-private partnerships to tackle fundamental health issues.
In the interim Budget announced in February 2009, the UPA government allocated Rs 16,534 crore to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. In the full Budget scheduled for July 7, 2009, the health sector is expected to see funding hiked by 25 per cent, and get an additional Rs 4,000 crore.
The crumbling public health infrastructure remains a key issue on the UPA government’s agenda. It seems to be looking to follow up on this under its flagship National Rural Heath Mission, launched in 2005. Additionally, the government is urging the ministry to pay special attention to the infant mortality rate, the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and primary health centres (PHCs).
A higher monetary contribution from the government to health care — expected to rise to 3 per cent from the earlier 1 per cent of the GDP — is well intended, but it does not lay to rest concerns of underutilisation of resources.
One constructive step for the upcoming Budget could be to develop a twofold agenda that takes into account both public and private health care. Dr Ashok Seth, chairman of Escorts Heart Institute in Delhi, points out that, “Nutrition and hygiene at the grassroot level needs urgent attention, including control of safety-related disorders and infections.” Keeping infection levels low, including pregnancy-related infections, will keep overall health care in check and decrease the danger of severe diseases at a later stage.
Speaking in favour of private entrepreneurship in the health sector, Seth emphasises the need for a clear realisation by the government that it does not have the capacity to provide advanced, high-technology treatment on a large scale. Thus, the need for public-private parternships takes on greater significance.
“For those who can afford it,” Seth says, “high technology-based health care should be made more accessible. Therefore, we need a high level of subsidy, by which I mean allowing for partnerships. Also, focusing on the indigenous manufacture of items, instead of importing technology, is necessary.”
For example, surgical technology like stents can be manufactured indigenously, if the government releases capital expenditure and creates Special Economic Zones for the purpose. In the absence of indigenous health care technology, the high cost of imports is, ultimately, borne by the patients.
The cost load would ease significantly if private-public partnerships are looked upon with less mistrust by the government. “Both the government and private firms have the same intention — to provide quality indigenous technical health care,” says Seth.
