I attended a conference today hosted jointly by the Imperial College’s Institute for Global Health and the Lancet which discussed public financing of health in developing countries. The centre-piece of the conference was a presentation by Professor Christopher Murray of the paper published by him and his colleagues in the Lancet. The main conclusion of Professor Murray’s study was that development assistance for health from donor countries can lead to a reduction in direct government spending on health in developing countries. In contrast, when development assistance for health was given to non-governmental organisations, this effect was not present. The study was a very impressive achievement, particularly given the limitations of the data that Professor Murray’s team had to use. The study raises some important questions for both donor countries and recipients of development assistance for health.
As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments for th
Comments