Redefining the measure of medical education: harnessing the transformative potential of MEPI.

The massive shortage of skilled health professionals in many parts of the world is a critical constraint to achieving the goal of universal health coverage. This shortfall reflects a generalized failure of leadership: a chronic misalignment between the direction of health professional education and the health goals of society. The Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and Nurse Education Partnership Initiative (NEPI) are outliers in this regard through their deliberate efforts to revitalize education to address the pressing health needs of Sub-Saharan Africa. Inspired by this example, the World Bank Group sees health professional education institutions (HPEIs) as an insufficiently tapped source of knowledge and know-how for accelerating health achievement. The challenge ahead is to articulate clearer expectations for HPEI performance, marshal more and smarter investments across the public and private sectors, prioritize accountability, incentivize innovation, and strengthen global learning and evaluation. It is time to build on the positive legacy of MEPI/NEPI and ensure that the conditions are made available for a new generation of health workers with the competencies to meet the health and development challenges of today and tomorrow.

Redefining global health-care delivery.

Initiatives to address the unmet needs of those facing both poverty and serious illness have expanded significantly over the past decade. But many of them are designed in an ad-hoc manner to address one health problem among many; they are too rarely assessed; best practices spread slowly. When assessments of delivery do occur, they are often narrow studies of the cost-effectiveness of a single intervention rather than the complex set of them required to deliver value to patients and their families. We propose a framework for global health-care delivery and evaluation by considering efforts to introduce HIV/AIDS care to resource-poor settings. The framework introduces the notion of care delivery value chains that apply a systems-level analysis to the complex processes and interventions that must occur, across a health-care system and over time, to deliver high-value care for patients with HIV/AIDS and cooccurring conditions, from tuberculosis to malnutrition. To deliver value, vertical or stand-alone projects must be integrated into shared delivery infrastructure so that personnel and facilities are used wisely and economies of scale reaped. Two other integrative processes are necessary for delivering and assessing value in global health: one is the alignment of delivery with local context by incorporating knowledge of both barriers to good outcomes (from poor nutrition to a lack of water and sanitation) and broader social and economic determinants of health and wellbeing (jobs, housing, physical infrastructure). The second is the use of effective investments in care delivery to promote equitable economic development, especially for those struggling against poverty and high burdens of disease. We close by reporting our own shared experience of seeking to move towards a science of delivery by harnessing research and training to understand and improve care delivery.

An assessment of interactions between global health initiatives and country health systems.

Since 2000, the emergence of several large disease-specific global health initiatives (GHIs) has changed the way in which international donors provide assistance for public health. Some critics have claimed that these initiatives burden health systems that are already fragile in countries with few resources, whereas others have asserted that weak health systems prevent progress in meeting disease-specific targets. So far, most of the evidence for this debate has been provided by speculation and anecdotes. We use a review and analysis of existing data, and 15 new studies that were submitted to WHO for the purpose of writing this Report to describe the complex nature of the interplay between country health systems and GHIs. We suggest that this Report provides the most detailed compilation of published and emerging evidence so far, and provides a basis for identification of the ways in which GHIs and health systems can interact to mutually reinforce their effects. On the basis of the findings, we make some general recommendations and identify a series of action points for international partners, governments, and other stakeholders that will help ensure that investments in GHIs and country health systems can fulfil their potential to produce comprehensive and lasting results in disease-specific work, and advance the general public health agenda. The target date for achievement of the health-related Millennium Development Goals is drawing close, and the economic downturn threatens to undermine the improvements in health outcomes that have been achieved in the past few years. If adjustments to the interactions between GHIs and country health systems will improve efficiency, equity, value for money, and outcomes in global public health, then these opportunities should not be missed.