People’s Charter for Health / People’s Health Assembly

People’s Health Assembly
4-8 December 2000 in Bangladesh

Introduction

In 1978, at the Alma-Ata Conference, ministers from 134 members countries in association with WHO and UNICEF declared “Health for All by the Year 2000” selecting Primary Health Care as the best tool to achieve it.

Unfortunately, that dream never came true. The health status of Third world populations has not improved. In many cases it has deteriorated further. Currently we are facing a global health crisis, characterized by growing inequalities within and between countries. New threats to health are continually emerging. This is compounded by negative forces of globalisation which prevent the equitable distribution of resources with regard to the health of people and especially that of the poor.

Within the health sector, failure to implement the principles of primary health care, as originally conceived in Alma-Ata, has significantly aggravated the global health crisis. Governments and the international bodies are fully responsible for this failure.

It has now become essential to build up a concerted international effort to put the goals of Health for All to its rightful place on the development agenda. Genuine, people-centred initiatives must therefore be strengthened in order to increase pressure on decision-makers, governments and the private sector to ensure that the vision of Alma-Ata becomes a reality.

Several international organizations and civil society movements, NGOs and women’s groups decided to work together towards this objective. This group together with others committed to the principles of primary health care and people’s perspectives organised the “People’s Health Assembly” which took place from 4-8 December 2000 in Bangladesh, at Savar, on the campus of the Gonoshasthaya Kendra or GK (People’s Health Centre).

1453 participants from 92 countries came to the Assembly which was the culmination of eighteen months of preparatory action around the globe. The preparatory process elicited unprecedented enthusiasm and participation of a broad cross section of people who have been involved in thousands of village meetings, district level workshops and national gatherings.

The Plenary Sessions at the Assembly covered five main themes: Health, Life and Well-Being; Inequality, Poverty and Health; Health Care and Health Services; Environment and Survival; and The Ways Forward. People from all over the world presented testimonies of deprivation and service failure as well as those of successful people’s initiatives and organisation. Over a hundred concurrent sessions made it possible for participants to share and discuss in greater detail different aspects of the major themes and give voice to their specific experiences and concerns. The five days event gave participants the space to express themselves in their own idiom. They put forward the failures of their respective governments and international organisations and decided to fight together so that health and equitable development become top priorities in the policy makers agendas at the local, national and international levels.

Having reviewed their problems and difficulties and shared their experiences, they have formulated and finally endorsed the People’s Charter for Health. The Charter from now on will be the common tool of a worldwide citizen’s movement committed to make the Alma-Ata dream a reality. We encourage and invite everyone who shares our concerns and aims to join us by endorsing the Charter.

People’s Charter for Health

Preamble

Health is a social, economic and political issue and above all a fundamental human right. Inequality, poverty, exploitation, violence and injustice are at the root of ill-health and the deaths of poor and marginalised people. Health for all means that powerful interests have to be challenged, that globalisation has to be opposed, and that political and economic priorities have to be drastically changed.

This Charter builds on perspectives of people whose voices have rarely been heard before, if at all. It encourages people to develop their own solutions and to hold accountable local authorities, national governments, international organisations and corporations.

Vision

Equity, ecologically-sustainable development and peace are at the heart of our vision of a better world – a world in which a healthy life for all is a reality; a world that respects, appreciates and celebrates all life and diversity; a world that enables the flowering of people’s talents and abilities to enrich each other; a world in which people’s voices guide the decisions that shape our lives.

There are more than enough resources to achieve this vision.

The HEALTH Crisis

“Illness and death every day anger us. Not because there are people who get sick or because there are people who die. We are angry because many illnesses and deaths have their roots in the economic and social policies that are imposed on us.”
(A voice from Central America)

In recent decades, economic changes world-wide have profoundly affected people’s health and their access to health care and other social services.

Despite unprecedented levels of wealth in the world, poverty and hunger are increasing. The gap between rich and poor nations has widened, as have inequalities within countries, between social classes, between men and women and between young and old.

A large proportion of the world’s population still lacks access to food, education, safe drinking water, sanitation, shelter, land and its resources, employment and health care services. Discrimination continues to prevail. It affects both the occurrence of disease and access to health care.

The planet’s natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate. The resulting degradation of the environment threatens everyone’s health, especially the health of the poor. There has been an upsurge of new conflicts while weapons of mass destruction still pose a grave threat.

The world’s resources are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few who strive to maximise their private profit. Neoliberal political and economic policies are made by a small group of powerful governments, and by international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation. These policies, together with the unregulated activities of transnational corporations, have had severe effects on the lives and livelihoods, health and well-being of people in both North and South.

Public services are not fulfilling people’s needs, not least because they have deteriorated as a result of cuts in governments’ social budgets. Health services have become less accessible, more unevenly distributed and more inappropriate.

Privatisation threatens to undermine access to health care still further and to compromise the essential principle of equity. The persistence of preventable ill health, the resurgence of diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria, and the emergence and spread of new diseases such as HIV/AIDS are a stark reminder of our world’s lack of commitment to principles of equity and justice.

Principles of the People’s Charter for Health

The attainment of the highest possible level of health and well-being is a fundamental human right, regardless of a person’s colour, ethnic background, religion, gender, age, abilities, sexual orientation or class.

The principles of universal, comprehensive Primary Health Care (PHC), envisioned in the 1978 Alma Ata Declaration, should be the basis for formulating policies related to health. Now more than ever an equitable, participatory and intersectoral approach to health and health care is needed.

Governments have a fundamental responsibility to ensure universal access to quality health care, education and other social services according to people’s needs, not according to their ability to pay.

The participation of people and people’s organisations is essential to the formulation, implementation and evaluation of all health and social policies and programmes.

Health is primarily determined by the political, economic, social and physical environment and should, along with equity and sustainable development, be a top priority in local, national and international policy-making.

A call for Action

To combat the global health crisis, we need to take action at all levels – individual, community, national, regional and global – and in all sectors. The demands presented below provide a basis for action.

Health As A Human Right

Health is a reflection of a society’s commitment to equity and justice. Health and human rights should prevail over economic and political concerns.

This Charter calls on people of the world to:

Support all attempts to implement the right to health.

Demand that governments and international organisations reformulate, implement and enforce policies and practices which respect the right to health.

Build broad-based popular movements to pressure governments to incorporate health and human rights into national constitutions and legislation.

Fight the exploitation of people’s health needs for purposes of profit.

Tackling the broader determinants of health

Economic challenges

The economy has a profound influence on people’s health. Economic policies that prioritise equity, health and social well-being can improve the health of the people as well as the economy.

Political, financial, agricultural and industrial policies which respond primarily to capitalist needs, imposed by national governments and international organisations, alienate people from their lives and livelihoods. The processes of economic globalisation and liberalisation have increased inequalities between and within nations.

Many countries of the world and especially the most powerful ones are using their resources, including economic sanctions and military interventions, to consolidate and expand their positions, with devastating effects on people’s lives.

This Charter calls on people of the world to:

Demand radical transformation of the World Trade Organisation and the global trading system so that it ceases to violate social, environmental, economic and health rights of people and begins to discriminate positively in favour of countries of the South. In particular, such transformation must include intellectual property regimens such as patents and the Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement.

Demand the cancellation of Third World debt.

Demand radical transformation of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund so that these institutions reflect and actively promote the rights and interests of developing countries.

Demand effective regulation to ensure that TNCs do not have negative effects on people’s health, exploit their workforce, degrade the environment or impinge on national sovereignty.

Ensure that governments implement agricultural policies attuned to people’s needs and not to the demands of the market, thereby guaranteeing food security and equitable access to food.

Demand that national governments act to protect public health rights in intellectual property laws.

Demand the control and taxation of speculative international capital flows.

Insist that all economic policies be subject to health, equity, gender and environmental impact assessments and include enforceable regulatory measures to ensure compliance.

Challenge growth-centred economic theories and replace them with alternatives that create humane and sustainable societies. Economic theories should recognise environmental constraints, the fundamental importance of equity and health, and the contribution of unpaid labour, especially the unrecognised work of women.

Social and political challenges

Comprehensive social policies have positive effects on people’s lives and livelihoods. Economic globalisation and privatisation have profoundly disrupted communities, families and cultures. Women are essential to sustaining the social fabric of societies everywhere, yet their basic needs are often ignored or denied, and their rights and persons violated.

Public institutions have been undermined and weakened. Many of their responsibilities have been transferred to the private sector, particularly corporations, or to other national and international institutions, which are rarely accountable to the people. Furthermore, the power of political parties and trade unions has been severely curtailed, while conservative and fundamentalist forces are on the rise. Participatory democracy in political organisations and civic structures should thrive. There is an urgent need to foster and ensure transparency and accountability.

This Charter calls on people of the world to:

Demand and support the development and implementation of comprehensive social policies with full participation of people.

Ensure that all women and all men have equal rights to work, livelihoods, to freedom of expression, to political participation, to exercise religious choice, to education and to freedom from violence.

Pressure governments to introduce and enforce legislation to protect and promote the physical, mental and spiritual health and human rights of marginalised groups.

Demand that education and health are placed at the top of the political agenda. This calls for free and compulsory quality education for all children and adults, particularly girl children and women, and for quality early childhood education and care.

Demand that the activities of public institutions, such as child care services, food distribution systems, and housing provisions, benefit the health of individuals and communities.

Condemn and seek the reversal of any policies, which result in the forced displacement of people from their lands, homes or jobs.

Oppose fundamentalist forces that threaten the rights and liberties of individuals, particularly the lives of women, children and minorities.

Oppose sex tourism and the global traffic of women and children.

Environmental challenges

Water and air pollution, rapid climate change, ozone layer depletion, nuclear energy and waste, toxic chemicals and pesticides, loss of biodiversity, deforestation and soil erosion have far-reaching effects on people’s health. The root causes of this destruction include the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, the absence of a long-term holistic vision, the spread of individualistic and profit-maximising behaviours, and over-consumption by the rich. This destruction must be confronted and reversed immediately and effectively.

This Charter calls on people of the world to:

Hold transnational and national corporations, public institutions and the military accountable for their destructive and hazardous activities that impact on the environment and people’s health.

Demand that all development projects be evaluated against health and environmental criteria and that caution and restraint be applied whenever technologies or policies pose potential threats to health and the environment (the precautionary principle).

Demand that governments rapidly commit themselves to reductions of greenhouse gases from their own territories far stricter than those set out in the international climate change agreement, without resorting to hazardous or inappropriate technologies and practices.

Oppose the shifting of hazardous industries and toxic and radioactive waste to poorer countries and marginalised communities and encourage solutions that minimise waste production.

Reduce over-consumption and non-sustainable lifestyles – both in the North and the South. Pressure wealthy industrialised countries to reduce their consumption and pollution by 90 per cent.

Demand measures to ensure occupational health and safety, including worker-centred monitoring of working conditions.

Demand measures to prevent accidents and injuries in the workplace, the community and in homes.

Reject patents on life and oppose bio-piracy of traditional and indigenous knowledge and resources.

Develop people-centred, community-based indicators of environmental and social progress, and to press for the development and adoption of regular audits that measure environmental degradation and the health status of the population.

War, violence and conflict

War, violence and conflict devastate communities and destroy human dignity. They have a severe impact on the physical and mental health of their members, especially women and children. Increased arms procurement and an aggressive and corrupt international arms trade undermine social, political and economic stability and the allocation of resources to the social sector.

This Charter calls on people of the world to:

Support campaigns and movements for peace and disarmament.

Support campaigns against aggression, and the research, production, testing and use of weapons of mass destruction and other arms, including all types of landmines.

Support people’s initiatives to achieve a just and lasting peace, especially in countries with experiences of civil war and genocide.

Condemn the use of child soldiers, and the abuse and rape, torture and killing of women and children.

Demand the end of military occupation as one of the most destructive tools to human dignity.

Oppose the militarisation of humanitarian relief interventions.

Demand the radical transformation of the UN Security Council so that it functions democratically.

Demand that the United Nations and individual states end all kinds of sanctions used as an instrument of aggression which can damage the health of civilian populations.

Encourage independent, people-based initiatives to declare neighbourhoods, communities and cities areas of peace and zones free of weapons.

Support actions and campaigns for the prevention and reduction of aggressive and violent behaviour, especially in men, and the fostering of peaceful coexistence.

A PEOPLE-Centered HEALTH SECTOR

This Charter calls for the provision of universal and comprehensive primary health care, irrespective of people’s ability to pay. Health services must be democratic and accountable with sufficient resources to achieve this.

This Charter calls on people of the world to:

Oppose international and national policies that privatise health care and turn it into a commodity.

Demand that governments promote, finance and provide comprehensive Primary Health Care as the most effective way of addressing health problems and organising public health services so as to ensure free and universal access.

Pressure governments to adopt, implement and enforce national health and drug policies.

Demand that governments oppose the privatisation of public health services and ensure effective regulation of the private medical sector, including charitable and NGO medical services.

Demand a radical transformation of the World Health Organization (WHO) so that it responds to health challenges in a manner which benefits the poor, avoids vertical approaches, ensures intersectoral work, involves people’s organisations in the World Health Assembly, and ensures independence from corporate interests.

Promote, support and engage in actions that encourage people’s power and control in decision-making in health at all levels, including patient and consumer rights.

Support, recognise and promote traditional and holistic healing systems and practitioners and their integration into Primary Health Care.

Demand changes in the training of health personnel so that they become more problem-oriented and practice-based, understand better the impact of global issues in their communities, and are encouraged to work with and respect the community and its diversities.

Demystify medical and health technologies (including medicines) and demand that they be subordinated to the health needs of the people.

Demand that research in health, including genetic research and the development of medicines and reproductive technologies, is carried out in a participatory, needs-based manner by accountable institutions. It should be people- and public health-oriented, respecting universal ethical principles.

Support people’s rights to reproductive and sexual self-determination and oppose all coercive measures in population and family planning policies. This support includes the right to the full range of safe and effective methods of fertility regulation.

People’s participation for a healthy world

Strong people’s organisations and movements are fundamental to more democratic, transparent and accountable decision-making processes. It is essential that people’s civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are ensured. While governments have the primary responsibility for promoting a more equitable approach to health and human rights, a wide range of civil society groups and movements, and the media have an important role to play in ensuring people’s power and control in policy development and in the monitoring of its implementation.

This Charter calls on people of the world to:

Build and strengthen people’s organisations to create a basis for analysis and action.

Promote, support and engage in actions that encourage people’s involvement in decision-making in public services at all levels.

Demand that people’s organisations be represented in local, national and international fora that are relevant to health.

Support local initiatives towards participatory democracy through the establishment of people-centred solidarity networks across the world.

The People’s Health Assembly and the Charter

The idea of a People’s Health Assembly (PHA) has been discussed for more than a decade. In 1998 a number of organisations launched the PHA process and started to plan a large international Assembly meeting, held in Bangladesh at the end of 2000. A range of pre- and post-Assembly activities were initiated including regional workshops, the collection of people’s health-related stories and the drafting of a People’s Charter for Health.

The present Charter builds upon the views of citizens and people’s organisations from around the world, and was first approved and opened for endorsement at the Assembly meeting in Savar, Bangladesh, in December 2000.

The Charter is an expression of our common concerns, our vision of a better and healthier world, and of our calls for radical action. It is a tool for advocacy and a rallying point around which a global health movement can gather and other networks and coalitions can be formed.

Join Us – Endorse the Charter

We call upon all individuals and organisations to join this global movement and invite you to endorse and help implement the People’s Charter for Health.

PHA Secretariat,
e-mail: phasec@pha2000.org,
link to PHA site

Coordinating Committee:

Asian Community Health Action Network (ACHAN)

Consumers International

Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation (DHF)

Gonoshasthaya Kendra (GK)

Health Action International (HAI)

International People Health Council (IPHC)

Third World Network (TWN)

link to PHA site

Allyson M Pollock and David Price, The WTO & privatisation of health care systems

Allyson M Pollock, David Price

Rewriting the regulations: how the World Trade Organisation could accelerate privatisation in health-care systems

Lancet 2000; 356: 1995-2000

Health Policy and Health Services Research Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London, London WC1H 9EZ, UK

Correspondence to: Prof Allyson M Pollock
Allyson M Pollock, David Price

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is drawing up regulatory proposals which could force governments to open up their public services to foreign investors and markets. As part of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations, the WTO working party on reform of domestic regulation is developing a regulatory reform agenda which could mark a new era of compulsion in international trade law. Article VI.4 of the GATS is being strengthened with the aim of requiring member states to show that they are employing least trade-restrictive policies. The legal tests under consideration would outlaw the use of non-market mechanisms such as cross-subsidisation, universal risk pooling, solidarity, and public accountability in the design, funding, and delivery of public services as being anti-competitive and restrictive to trade. The domestic policies of national governments will be subject to WTO rules, and if declared illegal, could lead to trade sanctions under the WTO disputes panel process. The USA and European Union, with the backing of their own multinational corporations, believe that these new powers will advantage their own economies. Health-care professionals and public-health activists must ensure that this secretive regulatory reform process is opened up for public debate.

Sue Kerrison and Alison MacFarlane (editors), Official Health Statistics: an Unofficial Guide

Sue Kerrison and Alison MacFarlane, editors

Official Health Statistics: an Unofficial Guide

ISBN: 034073132X

Arnold Publishers, 2000

CONTENTS:

Chapter 1 SETTING THE SCENE
The government statistical service and the collection of official health statistics
Susan Kerrison and Alison Macfarlane

Chapter 2 SURVEYING THE POPULATION
Health topics in censuses and surveys
Mary Shaw, Danny Dorling and Jenny Grundy

Chapter 3 MATTERS OF LIFE, DEATH AND ILLNESS
Births, congenital anomalies, deaths, communicable diseases and cancer
Alison Macfarlane, Azeem Majeed, Neil Vickers, Phil Atkinson, and John Watson

Chapter 4 LOOKING AT HEALTH INEQUALITIES
Social class, disabled people and ethnic origin
Alison Macfarlane, Mel Bartley, Susan Kerrison, and Jenny Head

Chapter 5 MONEY MATTERS
Measuring poverty, wealth and unemployment.
Paul Johnson, Sarah Tanner, and Ray Thomas

Chapter 6 HEALTH AT WORK AND HOME
Occupational ill health, housing and diet
Ben Armstrong, Rebeka Widdowfield, Yoav Ben shlomo, Eric Brunner, and Annette Boaz

Chapter 7 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Industrial pollution, air pollution and transport
Mary Taylor, Susan Kerrison, Sue Hare, Stephen Potter, Adrian Davis, and Ben Lane

Chapter 8 HEALTH CARE
Monitoring the NHS
Alison Macfarlane, Susan Kerrison, Declan Gaffney, and Sylvia Godden

Chapter 9 SOCIAL SERVICES STATISTICS
Statistics chasing the policy tail
Nick Miller and Robin Darton

Ana Costa, Edgar Hamman-Merchan y Debora Tajer (compiladores), Salud, equidad y genero

Ana Costa, Edgar Hamman-Merchan y Debora Tajer compiladores

“Salud, equidad y genero. Un desafio para las politicas publicas”

Editado por ABRASCO, ALAMES y la Editora de la Universidad de Brasilia,

Solicitar libro a ALAMES

El libro es el resultado de los trabajos presentados, durante el I Encuentro Latinoamericano “Salud, Equidad y Genero. Un Desafio para las Politicas Publicas” que se llevo a cabo en la ciudad de Rio de Janeiro, Brasil los dias 18 y 19 de septiembre de 1999

Organizacion: Red de Genero y Salud Colectiva de la Asociacion
Latinoamericana de Medicina Social -ALAMES y Grupo de Trabajo de Genero y Saludde la Asociacion Brasilera de Salud Colectiva ABRASCO

Articulos:
1. Globalizacion y Reforma del Estado.
Asa Cristina Laurell
Maestria en Medicina Social, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-X, Mexico. Secretaria de Salud, Mexico D.F.

2. La Impotencia de la Reforma
Roberto Passos Nogueira.IPEA/Nucleo de Estudios en Salud Publica, Universidad de Brasilia

3. Salud en las Reformas Contemporaneas
Celia Almeida. Red de Investigacion en Sistemas y Servicios de Salud del Cono Sur

4. Poros y grietas de los Modelos de Gestion en Salud
Maria de los Angeles Garduno Andrade. Maestria en Medicina Social, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-X, Mexico

5. Genero y equidad: desafios de los procesos de Reforma sectoriales en salud
Maria Urbaneja. Ministra de Salud, Venezuela. Coordinadora General
ALAMES 94/00

6. Generando la Reforma de la Reforma
Debora Tajer. Prof. Adjunta Estudios de Genero, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Coordinadora Red de Genero ALAMES. Coordinadora General ALAMES 01/02

7. Participacion y reforma de la salud: nuevas expectativas, viejas formas
Jeannine Anderson. Universidad Catolica, Peru

8. Salud de la Mujer en la reforma sanitaria brasilera
Ana Maria Costa.
Coordinadora NESP-UNB y Estela Leao Aquino, Coordinadora MUSA, UFBA y Grupo de Trabajo Genero y Salud ABRASCO

9. Nociones Respecto a la Perspectiva de Genero de Directivos de Programas Nacionales del Ministerio de Salud del Peru
Pilar Campana Segovia, Universidad Cayetano Heredia, Peru

10. Genero y modelo de Gestion en Salud del Municipio: la Experiencia de Riode Janeiro
Cristina Boaretto. Secretaria de Salud de Rio de Janeiro

11. Violencia Intrafamiliar en la Reforma del Sector Salud de Centroamerica
Lily Caravantes. Organizacion Panamericana de la Salud- Guatemala y Lea, Guido Representante OPS-Haiti

12. Genero, Participacion, Empoderamiento y Control Social en Salud
Magally Huggins Castaneda. Universidad Central de Venezuela

13. Mujeres y Control Social en Salud ?Hacia una Potenciacion de Genero?
Maria Isabel Matamala Vivaldi Coordinadora Adjunta Red de Salud de las
Mujeres Latinoamericanas y del Caribe, Chile

14. Genero y Control Social en Salud: la Omision de los Gobiernos y los
Limites del Monitoreo
. Jandira Feghali. Diputada Federal, Brasil

15. Derecho y Control Social
Humberto Jacques de Medeiros. Procuradoria de la Republica, Brasil

Vicente Navarro, Assessment of the World Health Report 2000

Assessment of the World Health Report 2000

Lancet 2000; 356: 1598-601

Public Policy Program, Johns Hopkins University, USA-Pompeu Fabra University, Spain (Prof V Navarro MD); School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 624 N Broadway, Room 448, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA

Correspondence to:

Prof Vicente Navarro, School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, USA Vicente Navarro

On June 24, 2000, the WHO released a report that assessed the world’s health-care systems based on an overall index of performance.1 The report had an immediate and enormous impact and was discussed on the front page of almost every major newspaper in the western world and on the broadcast news. The WHO, the health agency of the United Nations (UN), had assessed health-care systems around the world and everyone wanted to know where his or her country was placed in the health-care system league.

In health-policy circles, the report caused some big surprises. At the top of the WHO’s health-care league were countries such as Spain and Italy, whose health-care systems were rarely considered models of efficiency or effectiveness before. In Spain, for example, release of the WHO report, which ranked the Spanish system as the third best in Europe, after Italy and France, coincided with unprecedented demonstrations against the Spanish health-care authorities. Demonstrators were protesting against the long waiting lists for critical life-and-death interventions (which had been responsible for a large number of deaths) and the short consultation times in primary-care centres (an average of 3 mins per consultation). This state of affairs in the Spanish system had forced prominent professional associations, including the Spanish Association of Primary Care Physicians, to denounce the current situation as “intolerable” (these events were widely reported in the Spanish press in June and July; see, for example, the series in El Pais in June 2000). The growing popular protest had put Spain’s Conservative government on the defensive, until the WHO brought out its report listing the Spanish system as the third best in Europe and the seventh best in the world. Spain’s Conservative Minister of Health showed the WHO report to the protesters as proof of the unjustified nature of their complaints and demands.

The protesters, however, were not impressed by the WHO’s ranking of Spain’s health-care system. Something seemed profoundly wrong in the report’s claiming that the performance of the Spanish system was the seventh best in the world. The report’s conclusions certainly did not coincide with the perceptions of most Spanish people. In one of the most rigorous surveys of views of the Spanish population regarding health care, Spaniards expressed more discontent with their system than did the population of any other major country in the European Union, except Italy, whose health care was also listed among the “best” in the WHO report. An impressive 28% of the Spanish population (and an even more impressive 40% of the Italian population) indicated “there was so much wrong with their HCS (health-care system) that they needed to completely rebuild it”, and an additional 49% of the Spanish population (and 46% of the Italian population) stated that “there were some good things in their HCS but fundamental changes were needed to make it better.”2 There was indeed a disagreement about the definition of performance by the WHO and by the Spanish and Italian populations. Who is right? In order to answer this question, we must first understand that the WHO is not a scientific but rather a political institution whose positions and reports must be assessed both scientifically and politically.

The objective of the WHO ranking

Why do we need to rank countries according to the performance of their health services? Presumably, an important objective is to see what we can learn from “the best”, using them as points of reference on the road to better health. A very important element in the WHO ranking, however, is the credibility of the indicators of performance that it uses. It is therefore important to know how the ranking was developed, the assumptions behind the preparation of the indicators used in the ranking, and the consequences for health policy of choosing one indicator versus another.
Let us start with the nature of the indicators. The WHO report develops three types of indicators. The first is related to the effectiveness of the health-care system (mainly medical care plus traditional public-health services) in reducing mortality and morbidity. The second is related to the responsiveness of the system to the user, understanding responsiveness as the ability to protect the user’s dignity; to provide confidentiality and autonomy; to provide care promptly with high-quality amenities; to provide access to social support; and to ensure a choice of provider. And the third type of indicator is related to the fairness of the system, measured by the degree of progressiveness in the funding of health care.

All three types of indicators are weighted and added to create a single indicator, the indicator of performance. It is unclear why the WHO felt the need to come up with one synthetic indicator of performance. There is not, after all, a single UN indicator for ranking countries by economic performance. Rather, the annual UN economic reports use specific indicators to measure different components of economic efficiency such as unemployment, economic growth per capita, rate of productivity growth, and so on. But no single indicator summarises the many dimensions of the equally complex issue of economic performance. So why did the WHO decide to make a single indicator for performance of health-care systems? The WHO report is silent on this point.

Effectiveness of health-care systems

In the WHO’s conceptualisation of medical-care effectiveness, the report uncritically reproduces a major assumption in medical-care cultures that medicine is very effective in reducing mortality and morbidity. I find it astonishing that a prominent public-health agency could state:

“The differing degrees of efficiency with which health systems organize and finance themselves, and react to the needs of their populations explain much of the widening gap in death rates between the rich and poor, in countries and between countries, around the world”.

No evidence is given for such a statement. Actually, published literature shows that much of the widening gap in mortality rates within and among countries is primarily related to the growing differentials in wealth and income.3

“Health systems have played a part in the dramatic rise in life expectancy that occurred during the XX century”.

Here again, no scientific data are given to support such a statement. Actually, the evidence shows that the most dramatic declines in mortality and increases in life expectancy occurred during the 20th century before medical care proved effective. Indeed, most dramatic changes in mortality during the century were the result of social and economic interventions.4.5

“If Sweden enjoys better health than Uganda–life expectancy is almost exactly twice as long–it is in large part because it spends exactly 35 times as much per capita in its health systems”.

Again, no evidence is given for this statement. All the scientific data show there is no link between the level of expenditures in health-care systems and level of mortality. There is evidence, however, for a link between political interventions, wealth and income distribution, and mortality indicators.6

This enormous faith in the effectiveness of medical care reaches extreme proportions when the WHO report indicates that with “an investment in health care of $12 per person, one third of the disease burden in the world in 1990 would have been averted”. Thus, the report gives the impression that the major problems of mortality and morbidity are a consequence of the limited resources of health-care systems. Give more money to a health system and more lives will be saved. The report even quantifies how many lives could be saved per dollar invested. Very neat, but profoundly wrong. Nowhere does the WHO report present any scientific evidence to support these wild assertions. Again, most available data show that other factors are far more important in explaining a country’s level of health and mortality than are its medical services. Any student of public health knows that medicine is not as effective in reducing mortality and morbidity as the medical establishment believes. Indeed, there is extensive literature on the social, cultural, economic, and political causes of health and disease. That medical care is less effective in reducing mortality than the WHO report assumes does not mean, of course, that medicine is not useful in taking care of patients’ medical conditions and improving their quality of life. But it is wrong to explain a country’s level of mortality by its medical services. Not even public-health interventions (such as immunising against childhood diseases), which have been far more effective in reducing mortality than have medical-care interventions, can be considered the main reasons for the mortality decline in the 20th century. Social, economic, and political interventions are the primary reasons for this decline.

This mistaken assumption–overestimating the effectiveness of medical and health care–explains why some countries, such as the Mediterranean countries, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, which traditionally have good health indicators with long life expectancies, earn high marks in the WHO’s classification of effectiveness. The report erroneously attributes the low mortality in these countries to the effectiveness of their medical care. Actually, these various Mediterranean countries have different types of health services, but all share the characteristic that public expenditures in the health-care system as a percentage of gross national product are among the lowest in the EU. Table 2 (basic indicators for all member states) of the WHO report shows these are among the countries with the lowest probability of dying (per 1000) for children under 5 years and for adults between 15 and 59 years, and with the longest life expectancy in the world. None of them have large health-system expenditures. Their types of funding and organisation are extremely varied–with the common denominator, however, of the populations’ high level of dissatisfaction with their health systems. Actually, the WHO report lists these health systems as among the least responsive (to users) of all European systems. In the ranking for responsiveness, Spain is listed 34th, Greece 36th, Portugal 38th, and Italy 23rd, all of them among the least responsive in the EU. It would seem then, according to the authors of the WHO report, that the effectiveness of health-care systems in reducing mortality outweighs their limited responsiveness. They are thus considered user-unfriendly but very effective nevertheless. It is highly questionable, however, whether the good mortality indicators of these countries are the results of health-care system interventions.

Who defines the indicators of responsiveness?

The second component of performance is related to what the report called “responsiveness” of the health-care system to users. The report includes here two major groups of considerations. The first deals with what the report calls “respect for persons”, which includes the dignity afforded to the patient, the confidentiality of patients’ information, and patients’ autonomy. The second group is referred to as “client-oriented attributes”, such as prompt attention to the patient, the quality of the amenities, access to social support networks, and choice of provider. It would seem that these characteristics should give a fairly good idea of how responsive a health-care system is to its users.

Conceptually, then, indicators of responsiveness seem to be reasonable. The problem arises when we see that the people who defined the values of these indicators and the weights given to each (derived from questionnaires) are what the WHO report calls “key informants”, without specifying who those key informants are. These unknown key informants are most likely experts on health care in the various countries. And the survey of these informants is therefore likely to be a survey of the “conventional wisdom” among experts who define the degree of responsiveness of health-care systems to users. The report does not explain who these key informants are, nor does it explain the criteria for their selection. It is likely, however, that the choice of these informants and experts was highly biased towards what are called health-care-establishment figures. Indeed, the selection of references in the report’s bibliography is quite biased and prejudiced against critical positions, issues, or authors. One can find consistent references to conservative and neoliberal authors (such as Alain Enthoven of Stanford University, USA) and mainstream medical journals, but never does the report make reference to critical authors or scientific journals that question established wisdom.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the survey of responsiveness reveals that the countries with more responsive health-care systems are those whose health policies better fit what has become the new conventional wisdom. In this thinking, health-care services that combine public funding with public provision of health care (which has characterised national health services) are out. They are constantly referred to as examples of “heavy handed state intervention . . . the type of intervention discredited everywhere”, “highly impersonal and inhuman (as in the pre-1990 Soviet Union)”, and “monolithic”. The abusive nature of the disqualification of these types of health services is all too clear when the collapse of the Soviet Union is used as an example of the deficiencies of national health services. The fashionable thing now, in current conventional thinking, is an insurance system with a public-private mix that allows for competition between managed care plans, giving patients–referred to as clients–increased choice of providers and permitting more flexibility. The WHO report presents the Thatcher reforms in the British national health service as worth extrapolating to other systems. We should not be surprised that these key informants and experts selected the USA as having the system that is most responsive to users, and Colombia, a Latin American country whose national health service has been replaced by an insurance-based managed care competition model, as having the most responsive system in Latin America.

This profoundly ideological position of the WHO report also comes across in its analysis of what the WHO considers the “failure” of the Alma-Ata approach. The Alma-Ata Declaration was a famous WHO report, written in 1978, which emphasised the importance of primary-care services, combining medical with social interventions at the primary level of care. The new WHO report assumes that implementation of the Alma-Ata report failed because, in designing such primary-care models, too much attention was given to the health needs of the population and not enough to the demand for services; the Alma-Ata report was too oblivious to the importance of the private sector and the market. According to the WHO’s June, 2000, report, countries should give far more importance to reforms that aim at “making money follow the patient, shifting away from simply giving providers budgets, which in turn are often determined by supposed needs”, as many countries are now doing. The report also indicates that there is a link (nowhere documented) between expansion of private delivery of services and responsiveness of the health-care system. This shift from planning according to need toward demand in the market is a radical change in WHO policy, a change I consider antagonistic to the basic principles of public health.

Not surprisingly, besides choosing the USA as the country with the most responsive system, the WHO report considers the greatest challenge facing government-based health systems is to respond to the need for regulating the private sector, a function, say the authors, that most countries are not prepared for. The model they advocate is that put forward by Enthoven (an author cited approvingly in the report), which inspired the Thatcher reforms in the British national health service.

Consequently, given the political and propagandistic character of the report, nowhere do we find quoted, cited, or argued the huge amount of scientific evidence that questions each of the assumptions made in the report and challenges the superiority of insurance-based health-care systems. (There is an extensive literature critical of insurance-based managed care, mostly published in the International Journal of Health Services in the 1990s). To make the USA the top-ranked country in responsiveness to health-care users not only ignores the large body of scientific evidence that shows just how unresponsive the US health service actually is, but also sets aside any observation of the political context of health policy in the USA. The Democratic Party is now trying to identify managed care and managed competition, and their unresponsiveness to users, with the Republican Party as a way of gaining some political advantage in the coming Presidential and Congressional elections, knowing how unpopular managed care and managed competition are with most citizens of the USA.

Unfortunately, however, the WHO is doing what its American branch, the Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO), has been doing for years–functioning as a transmission bell for Latin America of the conventional wisdom in US financial and political circles. In recent years we have been witnessing how the PAHO and now the WHO, with the assistance of the World Bank and private foundations, are presenting insurance-based managed care as part of the solution to the burgeoning health-care problems in Latin America.7 The privately managed health-insurance schemes are seen as playing a positive role in complementing and competing with the government health-care systems. In a recent speech to corporate and academic leaders in the USA, the Director General of the PAHO referred to the successful experience of several private health insurance schemes in Latin America, taking Instituciones de Salud Previsional (ISAPRES), the major private insurance scheme in Chile, as an example: “The example of ISAPRES in Chile shows the possible success of the privately managed health and social insurance schemes

Celia Sarduy Sánchez, Ada Caridad Alfonso Rodriguez, Género: Salud y Cotidianidad

Sarduy Sánchez, Celia / Alfonso Rodriguez, Ada Caridad

Género: Salud y Cotidianidad. Temas de actualidad en el contexto cubano

Editorial Cientifico-Técnica, La Habana, 2000

ISBN 959-05-0258-x
Instituto Cubano del Libro
Editorial Cientifico-Tecnica
Calle 14 no 4104, entre 41 y 43, Playa,
Ciudad de La Habana, Cuba

Índice
Prólogo Mayda Álvarez Suárez

Presentación Adá C. Alfonso Rodriguez

Introduction Celia Sarduy Sánchez

Ser mujer en Cuba. Riegos y conquistas Patricia Arés Muzio

Salud mental de las mujeres y vida cotidiana Adá C. Alfonso Rodriguez

Genero y vinculo amoroso Lourdes Fernández Rius

Salud sexula y reproductiva. Reflexiones con los jovenes. Natividad Guerrero Borrego

Salud y trabajo domestico Adá C. Alfonso Rodriguez y Celia Sarduy Sánchez

Alimentacion, nutricion y cotidianidad.¿Un problema de mujeres? Francisca Valdespino Breto

Educar la sexualidad en la familia. ¿Una responsabilidad de mujeres? Inalvis Rodrigues Reyes

Mujer,genero y SIDARosaido Ochoa Soto y Murna Villalón Oramas

Niñas y niños opinan sobre el SIDAElcida Álvarez Carril

Genero y prostitución: algunas refelxiones a las puertas del tercer milenioAna Isabel Peñate Leiva

Salud y violencia de genero Juana Iliana Artiles de León

Mujer y poder en CubaMayda Álvarez Suárez

Indicadores de salud. Una alternativa para el analisis de la salud desde la perspectiva de generoIleana Castañeda Abascal y Héctor D. Bayarre Vea

Enfoque de genero: una necesidad de la investigacion gerontologica en el contexto cubano Héctor D. Bayarre Vea

Posmodernidad, genero y salud Celia Sarduy Sánchez

Politicas de salud con perspectiva de genero a las puertas del terciero milenio Leticia Artiles Visbal

Epilogo Débora Tajer

IAHPE Previous Conferences

List of the previous Conferences of IAHP-Europe by year, place ant theme of the conference

1982 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Economic crises and health care

1984 Vienna, Austria
Primary health care and its relevance for social movements

1986 Stocholm, Sweden
Community participation in occupational health

1986 Visegrad, Hungary
Health policy for underprivileged groups

1988 Paris, France

Declaración de La Habana, 7 Julio 2000

Declaración Política Final del VIII Congreso Latinoamericano de Medicina Social y del XI Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Politicas de Salud

La Habana – Cuba, 3 al 7 de Julio de 2000

Los participantes del VIII Congreso Latinoamericano de Medicina Social y XI Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Políticas de Salud, realizados en La Habana – Cuba del 3 al 7 de julio del 2000, convocan a todos los pueblos del Mundo, a todas las mujeres y hombres que sienten como suyos las responsabilidades, desafios y el imperativo de construir sociedades justas y equitativas, para que se sumen a estas palabras difundióndolas y trasformíndolas en acciones sostenidas.

Queremos denunciar al Mundo los efectos devastadores de las políticas de ajuste macroecon?mico sobre la posibilidad y la calidad de vida de los pueblos, y afirmar que estos efectos no son accidentes excepcionales de las políticas económicas neoliberales, sino que son la esencia misma de una lógica que objetiva la maximización del lucro, la destrucción de la capacidad de seguridad social de los Estados y la misma identidad de los estados nacionales, dividiendo el mundo a trav?s de un imenso apartheid social, donde regiones, países y continentes son relegados a la condición de espectadores de la monstruosa acumulación de capitales internacionales. De esto resulta la faz más despiadada de la llamada globalización económica o mundialización del capital: la profunda inequidad que se establece como una lógica perpetuadora de la injusticia social, tornando a los ricos cada día más ricos y a los pobres desesperadamente más pobres. La fragilización de la vida infantil y de la vejez y la feminización de la pobreza. Como fruto de estas inequidades, los pobres del mundo miran a los paýses ricos como del otro lado de las vidrieras del shopping mundial, buscando en desesperadas migraciones económicas el para?so que el mismo orden económico mundial les niega, y que, ya sabemos, es un modelo de desarrollo socialmente segregador y ecológicamente insostenible.

Asimismo queremos alertarles que la mundialización del capital no es una abstracción, pues define la posibilidad de la calidad de vida, la salud y por ende la posibilidad de la vida humana, y además no es hecha por entes abstractos como el Banco Mundial y el FMI, pues estos organismos reflejan las directivas de los grandes conglomerados capitalistas que hoy dominan el mundo, apoyados en el manejo político de gobiernos de muchos países ricos y pobres, cuyas clases dirigentes están comprometidas con la salud del capital, suyo y ajeno, más que con la salud y bienestar de sus própios pueblos. Así es que afirmamos que el espacio de lucha contra el perverso orden mundial dominante encuentra su expresión en cada ciudad, región y continente, a trav?s de una lucha posible y necesaria que convoque cada mujer y cada hombre a defender su dignidad y la dignidad de las generaciones futuras hacia un mundo justo, equitativo y solidario.

La salud como expresión compleja de las determinaciones econ?micas y sociales sobre las condiciones de vida, es un campo de lucha por el pleno respeto a los derechos sociales, económicos y culturales de los pueblos. Para nosotros y nosotras, salud es un derecho humano esencial, derecho fundamental de ciudadan?a y un bien público. Y también es un deber del Estado, al cual lo deseamos como garantizador del inter?s público, defendiendo esos intereses en la arena del mercado, evitando la mercatilización de la salud. Así es que defendemos el rescate del Estado para sus funciones de defensa del ciudadano y de la vida, a trav?s de la afirmación de la dignidad de la política como espacio público y democrático.

Exigimos de la pol?tica y de la econom?a su recuperaci?n hacia principios ?ticos que defiendan la dignidad del hombre y proclamen la mundializaci?n de la solidaridad y de la defensa de la vida.

Es nuestro deber manifestar nuestra indignaci?n frente al reciente informe de la OMS, que refleja la sumisi?n de este importante ?rgano del sistema de la ONU, a los principios de eficiencia econ?mica y gerencial del sector salud, exigidos por los organismos econ?micos y financieros, sin mirar los efectos en la vida de los pueblos pobres y explotados, originados en una l?gica que lanza al mercado la lucha por la salud, seleccionando econ?micamente los que van a vivir y morir. Destrozando los sistemas p?blicos de salud en nombre de una mayor eficiencia econ?mica, pero que en realidad se est? traduciendo por un aumento de gastos en el sector, con la tranferencia de los recursos p?blicos para el sector privado, que se apropia de estos recursos como costos administrativos.

Esto lo podemos observar en el caso colombiano, considerado por la OMS como el m?s eficiente sistema latino americano, no obstante esta eficiencia excluya ciudadanos y destruya la estructura p?blica de atenci?n. Denunciamos el ranking de la OMS como una forma m?s de fomentar un pensamiento que nos conduce a la inequidad y a la injusticia a partir de crit?rios sin ninguna orientaci?n humana.

El mismo informe nos presenta a Cuba mal ubicada entre los pa?ses evaluados, justo Cuba que es el ejemplo mayor de compromiso pol?tico por la salud y la equidad expresado en sus indicadores sociales y sanitarios que est?n entre los tres mejores de Am?rica Latina, habiendo alcanzado las metas de salud para todos en el a?o 2000. Lo que nos permite cuestionar por qu?, a pesar de saber c?mo alcanzar estas metas, no las cumplimos. La respuesta est? en el divorcio entre las declaraciones del sector salud y las pol?ticas econ?micas neoliberales impuestas por la hegemon?a del capital mundial.

Tambi?n nos escandaliza que los ajustes y b?squedas de eficiencia econ?mica para el sector salud nunca exijan el control de los precios y costos farmac?uticos, puesto que las industrias de f?rmacos est?n directamente vinculadas a la acumulaci?n salvaje en el sector salud, imponiendo precios exorbitantes en el Tercer Mundo y bloqueando las iniciativas de desarrollo de industrias farmac?uticas nacionales.

Queremos manifestar nuestra extrema desconfianza hacia los discursos de las agencias financieras internacionales, gobiernos y partidos de pa?ses ricos y pobres, que hablan de la pobreza y de la necesidad de combartirla, pero sin hablar de la necesidad de cambiar el modelo de desarrollo econ?mico que est? generando desempleo, destrucci?n de las garant?as de los derechos sociales y profundizando el abismo de las inequidades.

A estos organismos, gobiernos y corporaciones los desafiamos al debate p?blico y democr?tico de un desarrollo con cara humana.

De ninguna manera negamos la necesidad de reforma en los sistemas de salud y en los estados para que se acerquen a los ideales de desarrollo humano integrales y equitativos, lo que no aceptamos es la imposici?n de una l?gica ?nica centrada en los intereses de mercado del capital internacional.

En un momento de gran desarrollo cient?fico de la humanidad, se torna a?n m?s importante el tema de la ?tica y de la equidad, con la defensa de la salud como un bien p?blico. En particular en el tema del mapeo del genoma humano, nos parece esencial afirmar el derecho de la humanidad a estos descubrimientos, evitando una mercantilizaci?n que aumentar?a las inequidades y tendr?a efectos devastadores sobre el acceso de los pueblos del mundo a los avances de la ciencia.

Estimados compa?eras y compa?eros, nuestros Congresos convocan a todas y a todos a la construcci?n colectiva de una Agenda Pol?tica en Defensa de la Salud, como Derecho Social Esencial, Derecho de Ciudadan?a, Bien P?blico y Deber del Estado. Entendemos como Agenda Pol?tica P?blica al proceso de construcci?n democr?tica y participativa acerca de lo que quieren y necesitan nuestras sociedades, en cada ciudad, regi?n, pa?s y continente, pensando la materializaci?n de acuerdos que garanticen participativamente la dignidad humana y la ?tica m?s all? de los intereses financieros imediatos. Urge el debate p?blico mundial acerca de un modelo de desarrollo hacia la equidad, ecol?gicamente sostenible, que defienda el espacio del trabajo como generador de bienestar y que se oriente por la respuesta a las necesidades de cada persona en una perspectiva equitativa. En este sentido subrayamos que es un requisito para la realizaci?n de la equidad el incorporar en las propuestas la perspectiva de g?nero.

Nos proponemos y los invitamos, para actuar en nuestros espacios de vida como ciudadanos y ciudadanas del mundo, luchando por una sociedad orientada hacia la justicia social y la equidad, donde el respeto a la dignidad humana se posicione m?s arriba de la acumulacion salvaje del capital. Les convocamos a la reflexion y a la accion, movidos por la esperanza y la indignacion. Y lo hacemos desde Cuba, pa?s que prueba que es posible, a?n con escasos recursos, que se construya salud, como expresi?n de la dignidad humana.

Contamos con su comprometida, enérgica e indignada participaci?n.

La Habana, 7 de julio de 2000

ASOCIACIÓN LATINOAMERICANA DE MEDICINA SOCIAL
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH POLICY

Open Letter to the World Health Organisation / Carta abierta a la Organización Mundial de Salud

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH POLICY
ASOCIACION LATIONOAMERICANA DE MEDICINA SOCIAL

Open Letter to the World Health Organisation

The participants of the VIIIth Latinoamerican Confernece of Social Medicine and of the XIth Conference of the International Association of Health Policy, held in Habana, Cuba between the 3th and the 7th of July 2000 express our complete disagreement with the Assessment of the World’s Health Systems carried out by the World Health Organisation and presented recently in the World Health Report 2000.

This report, that results in a ranking classification of the countries, through its extensive diffusion from the mass media, generated protesting reactions from researchers in the field of health services and from local, regional and national health authorities in several countries.

Supported by a controversial methodology, cover with a superficial sophistication, based on reduced and questionable sources of information, its results conceal very distinct realities and produce unacceptable distortions in the comparison among countries.

Upon classifying each country by a reductionist and market oriented criterion of equity, that keeps in mind barely what the persons spend in health of their own pocket (known as “out of pocket”), abandons other more relevant criteria to evaluate the equity from the point of view of the equality of opportunities and the universal access to the health services in all the levels of complexity, that offer an integral care and of good quality.

It cannot be admitted that in Latin America, Cuba occupy the 25th place, while Colombia is located in the first place in equity.

We, the professionals of health of ALAMES and IAHP know that this does not correspond to the health reality of our countries, which is much more complex than that presented in the World Health Report 2000 of the WHO.

Finally, we feel repulsed with the implicit agenda in that type of evaluations, falsely neutrals, for the implementation of the alternative of health insurances, which are in their great majority private and with for profit goals, although they are directly or indirectly subsidised by public funds.

According to our criteria, that are based on the defense of the public and universal health systems, we consider that Cuba continue occupying the first place in Latin America and one of the leading positions worldwide, in everything that refers to health and social justice.

La Habana, 7th of July 2000

***

ASOCIACIÓN LATINOAMERICANA DE MEDICINA SOCIAL
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH POLICY

Carta abierta a la Organización Mundial de Salud

Los participantes del VIII Congreso Latinoamericano de Medicina Social y del XI Congreso de la Asociaci?n Internacional de Pol?ticas de Salud, reunidos en La Habana, Cuba, entre el 3 y el 7 de julio de 2000, manifestamos nuestro total desacuerdo con el ?ltimo Informe de la OMS que hace una evaluaci?n de los sistemas de salud en el mundo.

Este Informe, que result? en una clasificaci?n de los pa?ses, ampliamente divulgada por los medios de comunicaci?n, ha provocado reacciones de protesta por parte de estudiosos en salud y autoridades sanitarias locales, regionales y nacionales en muchos pa?ses.

Respaldado por una metodolog?a controvertida, revestida de una supuesta sofisticaci?n, basada en fuentes de informaci?n reducidas y cuestionables, sus resultados encubren realidades muy distintas y generan distorciones inaceptables en la comparaci?n entre los pa?ses.

Al clasificar cada pa?s por un criterio de equidad reduccionista y mercantilista, que tiene en cuenta apenas lo que las personas gastan en salud de su bolsillo (el llamado �out of pocket�), abandona otros criterios m?s relevantes para evaluar la equidad desde el punto de vista de la igualdad de oportunidades y del acceso universal a los servicios de salud en todos los niveles de complejidad, que brinden una asistencia integral y de buena calidad.

No se puede admitir que en Am?rica Latina, Cuba ocupe un 25? puesto, mientras que Colombia se ubica en primer lugar en equidad.

Nosotros, los profesionales de salud de ALAMES sabemos que esto no corresponde a la realidad sanitaria de nuestros pa?ses, mucho m?s compleja de lo que pretende el Informe de la OMS.

Finalmente, repudiamos la agenda impl?cita en ese tipo de evaluaciones, falsamente neutrales, de implantar la alternativa de los seguros de salud, en su gran mayor?a privados y con fines de lucro, aunque tales seguros est?n directa o indirectamente subsidados por recursos p?blicos.

Seg?n nuestros criterios, que se basan en la defensa de sistemas p?blicos y universales de salud, consideramos que Cuba sigue ocupando el primer lugar en Am?rica Latina en todo lo que se refiere a la salud y a la justicia social.