RESUMEN
This article provides an overview of the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report, which looks at social, economic, and cultural mechanisms that discriminate against disadvantaged children, youth, and adults, keeping them out of education or marginalized in it. Countries are expanding their vision of inclusion in education to put diversity at the core of their systems. Yet, implementation of well-meaning policies often falters. Released at the start of the Decade of Action to 2030, and during the Covid-19 crisis, which has exacerbated underlying inequalities, the report argues that resistance to addressing every learner's needs is a real threat to achieving global education targets. Inclusion and Education: All Means All identifies practices in governance and finance; curricula, textbooks, and assessments; teacher education; school infrastructure; and relations with students, parents, and communities that can unlock the process to inclusion. It provides policy recommendations to make learner diversity a strength to be celebrated, a force for social cohesion.
RESUMEN
OBJETIVO: Comparar los patrones de gastos catastróficos en salud en 12 países de América Latina y el Caribe. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se estimó la prevalencia de gastos catastróficos de manera uniforme para doce países usando encuestas de hogares. Se emplearon dos tipos de indicadores para medir la prevalencia basados en el gasto de bolsillo en salud: a) en relación con una línea de pobreza internacional; y b) en relación con la capacidad de pago del hogar en términos de su propia canasta alimentaria. Se estimaron razones para comparar el nivel de gastos catastróficos entre subgrupos poblacionales definidos por variables económicas y sociales. RESULTADOS: El porcentaje de hogares con gastos catastróficos variaron de 1 a 25 por ciento en los 12 países. En general, la residencia rural, el bajo nivel de ingresos, la presencia de adultos mayores, y la carencia de aseguramiento en salud de los hogares se asocian con mayor propensión a sufrir gastos catastróficos en salud. Sin embargo, existe una marcada heterogeneidad por país. CONCLUSIONES: Los estudios comparativos entre países pueden servir para examinar cómo los sistemas de salud contribuyen a la protección social de los hogares en América Latina.
OBJECTIVE: Compare patterns of catastrophic health expenditures in 12 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prevalence of catastrophic expenses was estimated uniformly at the household level using household surveys. Two types of prevalence indicators were used based on out-of-pocket health expense: a) relative to an international poverty line, and b) relative to the household's ability to pay net of their food basket. Ratios of catastrophic expenditures were estimated across subgroups defined by economic and social variables. RESULTS: The percent of households with catastrophic health expenditures ranged from 1 to 25 percent in the twelve countries. In general, rural residence, lowest quintile of income, presence of older adults, and lack of health insurance in the household are associated with higher propensity of catastrophic health expenditures. However, there is vast heterogeneity by country. CONCLUSIONS: Cross national studies may serve to examine how health systems contribute to the social protection of Latin American households.
