
Close the global healthcare gap: Solutions for a more equitable future
Newborn children in sub-Saharan Africa are 14 times more likely to die within the first month than those in high-income regions such as Australia and New Zealand.
Despite decades of advancements, healthcare disparities remain a pressing global concern. Established markets benefit from sophisticated health systems, yet billions of people in low- and middle-income countries still lack access to basic medical services and medical advancements. This inequality can be found in various areas, including access to medication and general healthcare.
Considered action must be taken by both public and private agencies to bridge this chasm and create sustainable, equitable healthcare systems that serve patients as effectively in emerging markets as they do in more established parts of the world.
In emerging markets, however, infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis (TB) and HIV/Aids continue to be of the utmost concern and child mortality rates vary significantly between emerging and established countries. According to the World Health Organisation, the global under-five mortality rate dropped by 59% from 1990 to 2023, but the disparities remain. Newborn children in sub-Saharan Africa are 14 times more likely to die within the first month than those in high-income regions such as Australia and New Zealand.
Treatable diseases in emerging markets continue to claim higher mortality rates than should be expected, because of financial barriers, supply shortages and limited access to trained professionals, resulting from geographical and cost factors.
About half the world's population lacks essential health services, leaving billions of people vulnerable to preventable conditions. The World Health Organisation has predicted that, by 2035, there will be a shortage of 12.9 million health workers and this paucity could be most pronounced in lower-income countries because more attractive pay levels will attract medical personnel to higher-income countries. These countries would also be better placed to produce such graduates.
Aid organisations based in high-income countries are, however, making great strides in assisting emerging markets, by providing essential supplies, funding and expertise, to facilitate greater access to medication, and fortify the health infrastructure of these regions.
The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria has, for example, has saved over 65 million lives since its inception in 2002, by achieving a 61% reduction in combined death rates from these diseases. In 2023 alone, the fund supported 25 million people by providing antiretroviral therapy for HIV. They also enabled treatment for 7.1 million TB patients and distributed 227 million mosquito nets, in their quest to reduce malaria infections.
Facilities in lower-income countries are fewer in number, poorly equipped and are not likely to exist in rural areas with lower population density. This leaves many patients having to travel long distances for treatment. In contrast, people in high-income countries are closer to hospitals, which are also better equipped. It's noteworthy that higher-income countries invest up to 60 times more per capita in healthcare than lower-income countries do.
These financial constraints often force individuals in emerging markets to pay for their care out of their own pockets, which can lead to economic hardship and perpetuate cycles of poverty. Expanding universal health coverage is therefore vital. Countries such as Thailand have successfully implemented universal health coverage policies and these have dramatically reduced financial burdens while improving public health outcomes.
Effective governance is critical to strengthening healthcare systems. Of the $7.5 trillion spent globally on health each year, it has been estimated that $500 billion is lost to corruption. In fact, the amount of healthcare funds stolen each year is more than enough to achieve health coverage for all. Tackling these issues through transparency and stronger policy frameworks, including stringent auditing, will significantly improve medical service delivery.
Innovative technology-driven solutions also offer us a promising avenue to narrow disparities. Telemedicine has revolutionised healthcare in underserved regions, allowing remote consultation and diagnosis, particularly in areas where medical professionals are scarce. And mobile health (or 'mHealth'), which uses smartphones, has enabled community health workers to track immunisations, disseminate health information and report and track outbreaks.
Portable, lower-cost diagnostics have proven to be a further gamechanger. Rapid diagnostic testing devices allow for the immediate diagnosis and treatment of malaria, HIV and TB, although desirable market penetration has yet to be achieved.
And then there's artificial intelligence, which is making its presence felt in all fields of human endeavour. AI-powered health-management information systems have different functions — operational, informational and decision-making — which sometimes conflict, but this reflects real-world conditions, where different sectors have to compete for resources.
It does, however, give a clear picture of the 'state of play' of a country's health system, which would allow its government to strengthen its healthcare strategy. There is the caveat, however, that internationally agreed recommendations be put in place to avoid possible innate AI bias.
Of course, at the foundation of all such progress is the need for infrastructural development. Expanding health worker education is vital and we need to develop initiatives which focus on task shifting, where lower-cadre workers are trained to handle medical tasks, enhancing healthcare delivery efficiency. Community health workers are proving particularly effective in preventative care, offering localised and accessible health support.
To make lasting improvements, public-private partnerships must also be used. Many countries have successfully engaged private firms to manage hospitals, expand telehealth networks and supply medication under government contracts. These partnerships inject essential energy, resources, innovation, efficiency and, importantly, accountability into public health systems.
Closing the healthcare gap requires a comprehensive, multi-sector approach — one which, fortunately, is already underway. Government investment in universal health coverage, healthcare infrastructure, trained professionals and technological advancements is essential.
With the right strategies and private-public commitment, a future where healthcare is accessible and equitable for all can become a reality. All interested parties must, however, exert and maintain the pressure and interest that's required to move all involved bureaucracies forward. Our plan for some imagined tomorrow needs to be replaced by viable action for a literal tomorrow.
Asgar Rangoonwala is the senior vice-president of Johnson & Johnson EMEA emerging markets.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mail & Guardian
15 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Close the global healthcare gap: Solutions for a more equitable future
Newborn children in sub-Saharan Africa are 14 times more likely to die within the first month than those in high-income regions such as Australia and New Zealand. Despite decades of advancements, healthcare disparities remain a pressing global concern. Established markets benefit from sophisticated health systems, yet billions of people in low- and middle-income countries still lack access to basic medical services and medical advancements. This inequality can be found in various areas, including access to medication and general healthcare. Considered action must be taken by both public and private agencies to bridge this chasm and create sustainable, equitable healthcare systems that serve patients as effectively in emerging markets as they do in more established parts of the world. In emerging markets, however, infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis (TB) and HIV/Aids continue to be of the utmost concern and child mortality rates vary significantly between emerging and established countries. According to the World Health Organisation, the global under-five mortality rate dropped by 59% from 1990 to 2023, but the disparities remain. Newborn children in sub-Saharan Africa are 14 times more likely to die within the first month than those in high-income regions such as Australia and New Zealand. Treatable diseases in emerging markets continue to claim higher mortality rates than should be expected, because of financial barriers, supply shortages and limited access to trained professionals, resulting from geographical and cost factors. About half the world's population lacks essential health services, leaving billions of people vulnerable to preventable conditions. The World Health Organisation has predicted that, by 2035, there will be a shortage of 12.9 million health workers and this paucity could be most pronounced in lower-income countries because more attractive pay levels will attract medical personnel to higher-income countries. These countries would also be better placed to produce such graduates. Aid organisations based in high-income countries are, however, making great strides in assisting emerging markets, by providing essential supplies, funding and expertise, to facilitate greater access to medication, and fortify the health infrastructure of these regions. The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria has, for example, has saved over 65 million lives since its inception in 2002, by achieving a 61% reduction in combined death rates from these diseases. In 2023 alone, the fund supported 25 million people by providing antiretroviral therapy for HIV. They also enabled treatment for 7.1 million TB patients and distributed 227 million mosquito nets, in their quest to reduce malaria infections. Facilities in lower-income countries are fewer in number, poorly equipped and are not likely to exist in rural areas with lower population density. This leaves many patients having to travel long distances for treatment. In contrast, people in high-income countries are closer to hospitals, which are also better equipped. It's noteworthy that higher-income countries invest up to 60 times more per capita in healthcare than lower-income countries do. These financial constraints often force individuals in emerging markets to pay for their care out of their own pockets, which can lead to economic hardship and perpetuate cycles of poverty. Expanding universal health coverage is therefore vital. Countries such as Thailand have successfully implemented universal health coverage policies and these have dramatically reduced financial burdens while improving public health outcomes. Effective governance is critical to strengthening healthcare systems. Of the $7.5 trillion spent globally on health each year, it has been estimated that $500 billion is lost to corruption. In fact, the amount of healthcare funds stolen each year is more than enough to achieve health coverage for all. Tackling these issues through transparency and stronger policy frameworks, including stringent auditing, will significantly improve medical service delivery. Innovative technology-driven solutions also offer us a promising avenue to narrow disparities. Telemedicine has revolutionised healthcare in underserved regions, allowing remote consultation and diagnosis, particularly in areas where medical professionals are scarce. And mobile health (or 'mHealth'), which uses smartphones, has enabled community health workers to track immunisations, disseminate health information and report and track outbreaks. Portable, lower-cost diagnostics have proven to be a further gamechanger. Rapid diagnostic testing devices allow for the immediate diagnosis and treatment of malaria, HIV and TB, although desirable market penetration has yet to be achieved. And then there's artificial intelligence, which is making its presence felt in all fields of human endeavour. AI-powered health-management information systems have different functions — operational, informational and decision-making — which sometimes conflict, but this reflects real-world conditions, where different sectors have to compete for resources. It does, however, give a clear picture of the 'state of play' of a country's health system, which would allow its government to strengthen its healthcare strategy. There is the caveat, however, that internationally agreed recommendations be put in place to avoid possible innate AI bias. Of course, at the foundation of all such progress is the need for infrastructural development. Expanding health worker education is vital and we need to develop initiatives which focus on task shifting, where lower-cadre workers are trained to handle medical tasks, enhancing healthcare delivery efficiency. Community health workers are proving particularly effective in preventative care, offering localised and accessible health support. To make lasting improvements, public-private partnerships must also be used. Many countries have successfully engaged private firms to manage hospitals, expand telehealth networks and supply medication under government contracts. These partnerships inject essential energy, resources, innovation, efficiency and, importantly, accountability into public health systems. Closing the healthcare gap requires a comprehensive, multi-sector approach — one which, fortunately, is already underway. Government investment in universal health coverage, healthcare infrastructure, trained professionals and technological advancements is essential. With the right strategies and private-public commitment, a future where healthcare is accessible and equitable for all can become a reality. All interested parties must, however, exert and maintain the pressure and interest that's required to move all involved bureaucracies forward. Our plan for some imagined tomorrow needs to be replaced by viable action for a literal tomorrow. Asgar Rangoonwala is the senior vice-president of Johnson & Johnson EMEA emerging markets.


Mail & Guardian
17 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
NGOs count the cost of lost United States funding
No service: The US government's funding cuts have put further strain on already overloaded clinics and forced some to close their doors. (Delwyn Verasamy) South Africa's non-profit organisations are still counting the costs of the cessation of US funding earlier this year, with financial shortfalls leading to healthcare job losses while critical HIV vaccine services and research have been heavily scaled back. US President Donald Trump announced in January that he was cutting US Agency for International Development ( According to official data, USAid disbursed $24.5 billion to organisations in the 2024 financial year. Accountability Lab, a global network for transparency and open government, ran a survey of 266 organisations affected by the freeze from 1 to 18 May, and a third reported being 'at imminent risk of closure', with African countries — Kenya, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Ghana — the most affected. 'Nine of the top 10 most affected are African countries, with El Salvador rounding out the top 10. Others include South Africa, Cameroon, Senegal and the US,' said Accountability Lab's global communications director Sheena Adams. 'Worryingly, 21% have only one month of financial resources remaining, while 24% report a three-month financial runway. 'In terms of job losses, almost 55% of respondents reported having furloughed or laid off staff, with a further 14% confirming that layoffs were under consideration. According to the state department, the US government committed $330 million in aid to South Africa last year, with $318.2 million coming from USAid. The lion's share, $219.7 million, was for HIV/Aids, followed by $43.11 million for basic health, $31.8 million for operating expenses, $7.512 million to environmental protection, $7.006 million for trade policy and regulation, $3.677 million for agriculture, $3.512 million for government and civil society and $1.608 million to basic education. The aid suspension will roll back progress in the fight against HIV/Aids, says activist group Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). 'The USAid and Pepfar [the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] funding freeze has had a chilling effect on the global fight against HIV/Aids, particularly in countries like South Africa that bear a high burden of disease,' TAC spokesperson Xabisa Qwabe said. 'Many community-led organisations — including treatment literacy programmes, support groups and outreach initiatives — have had to scale down or suspend operations. 'Pepfar funding [disbursed by TAC received substantial support from USAid/Pepfar through the Ritshidze Project, which enabled it to monitor service delivery, engage communities and hold the health system accountable. 'At its peak, up to 60% or more of TAC's operational budget was supported through this funding stream,' Qwabe said, adding that dozens of jobs had been lost. 'Staff retrenchments have occurred, particularly among community health educators and coordinators working in high-burden districts. The exact number may vary by province, but it has affected dozens of livelihoods. 'TAC's presence in many communities has been scaled back, meaning fewer workshops on treatment literacy, weaker monitoring of medicine stockouts and reduced mobilisation for treatment access and rights-based advocacy.' Pepfar funding didn't directly pay for medication in South Africa but funded crucial support systems. 'The funding freeze has disrupted these support structures, leading to reduced testing, longer turnaround times and greater strain on overburdened clinics. Patients are increasingly falling through the cracks, especially in under-resourced communities,' she said. TAC is actively seeking alternative funding, including local philanthropic partners, international donors, and development agencies, and has urged the government to step up support for civil society organisations. 'While some government departments have expressed willingness to explore support avenues, this is yet to materialise in substantial funding,' Qwabe added. The solution, she said, is the urgent resumption of Pepfar funding with clear transition plans. 'We also need a stronger financial commitment from the South African government to support community-led health programmes. There should be greater investment in building sustainable, locally owned health infrastructure that doesn't rely solely on foreign aid. Civil society must be recognised as a vital partner in achieving these goals. 'This funding crisis is not just a bureaucratic issue — it's a humanitarian emergency. 'Patients are losing access to services and dedicated community health workers are losing jobs they've held for years. These are the very people who ensured South Africa's HIV treatment scale-up succeeded.' 'We're beginning to hear reports that HIV testing is not being done as much as it was before, viral load testing and CD4 count testing is coming down, which obviously will have an impact on our ability to keep people virally suppressed. 'People will get sicker, and once they are no longer virally suppressed, they are also at risk of transmitting the virus,' Gray warned. 'We will probably see both an increase in morbidity and, if we're not careful, mortality in both children and adults who are not properly in care.' She noted that USAid and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding had supported scientific trials, adding: 'This has huge effects on HIV science and TB science, because we were involved in everything from vaccine research and development in both HIV and TB, as well as HIV cure, TB treatment trials and HIV treatment trials.' 'It also affects the NIH funding that supported clinical trial research infrastructure, laboratory research infrastructure and the whole ecosystem required to do innovation in HIV and TB — from discovery to pre-clinical testing to clinical trials to biomarker discovery. 'That whole ecosystem of innovation is severely hampered. The NIH funding was substantial — up to $250 million per annum.' There have been job losses affecting a range of people involved in the work, from scientists and master's students to nurses and drivers. 'It has a huge impact on the human resources for research. That has an effect both at a macro and micro level on the economy. Drivers, counsellors, recruiters — all of them get retrenched, which means their families are thrown into poverty. 'If you have a quarter of a million US dollars of revenue coming in, all of that gets taxed, so there's also an impact on revenue collection.' For example, the Perinatal HIV Research Unit at Baragwanath Hospital in Johannesburg has retrenched 70 staff members after losing NIH funding, which comprised 66% of its income. 'A lot more people will be retrenched over the next couple of months as the money dries up. 'Unless the research unit is able to diversify its funding stream it faces even further closure,' Gray said. The loss of its USAid funding also forced the Brilliant Consortium to hal 'The vaccine manufacturing has been put on hold but we managed to find funding [from the Gates Foundation] to conduct a smaller study at a single site in South Africa,' Gray said. The 'Many of our partners have completely shut down programmes and had to retrench staff and we are already feeling that we have to fill some of those gaps. 'Even testing kids the other day, we were down to one … how can you turn someone away from knowing their status? In the community there are concerns about whether people will be able to get their medication for their children,' she said. 'As a community-based organisation that has been serving our local community for 35 years, it's just heartbreaking to see the ripple effects of what has progressed. 'It's those who don't have options who are going to suffer the most. 'It is tragic. HIV has always been a global initiative with global targets and countries working together as a global community — and that has been destroyed.'


Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
Health association takes legal action against NHI Act
File photo by James Oatway The Health Funders Association this week launched a legal challenge against the President Cyril Ramaphosa The ANC, which governed the country solely until being forced into a national coalition after the polls, says the NHI is intended to provide universal and comprehensive health coverage to all South Africans. But it has faced fierce criticism from the private healthcare sector and parties such as the Health Funders Association chief executive Thoneshan Naidoo acknowledged this week that 'South Africa needs a healthcare system that delivers equitable, quality care to all [and] we fully support that vision.' But he added: 'In its current form, and without private sector collaboration, the NHI Act is fiscally impossible and operationally unworkable, and threatens the stability of the economy and health system, impacting everyone in South Africa.' The association filed its application at the Pretoria high court, joining five other medical entities that are fighting the law. The It argued that the framework in its current form was not fiscally feasible and would also have adverse effects on South Africa's healthcare and economic outcomes. 'The steep tax increases required to fund the NHI will reduce disposable income, curb consumer spending across all sectors of the economy and may well trigger an exodus of high-income taxpayers,' it said. 'At the same time, destabilising the private healthcare sector will deter investment, put jobs at risk, and slow The association's position is premised on a report by Genesis Analytics, published this week, which showed that the 'NHI Act requires unsustainable tax increases while reducing healthcare access for medical scheme members'. It said the analysis also revealed South Africa's racially diverse medical scheme membership, in which more than 68% of members are black, Indian or coloured, and up to 83% earn less than R37 500 a month. 'The proposed NHI would, therefore, disproportionately impact working-class households who currently rely on medical schemes for quality care.' Modelling by Genesis Analysis showed that it would be impossible to raise the funds required for NHI, 'even under the most optimistic assumptions'. 'For NHI to fund a level of care equivalent to what medical scheme members currently receive, as government has indicated is the intention, the Genesis model shows that personal income tax would need to increase by 2.2 times (a 115% increase in tax) from the current average rate of 21% to an average of 46% of income.' This, it said, would push marginal tax rates in the lowest income bracket from 18% to 41%, and in the highest bracket from 45% to 68%. Building its case, the association said the Genesis model projected that more than 286 000 additional healthcare professionals would be required to fulfil the NHI vision. This is more than twice the number of general practitioners, nurses and pharmacists and three times the number of specialists. 'NHI will therefore place significant pressure on healthcare workers and addressing these capacity gaps will require significant time and investment,' the association said. Naidoo added that South Africa does not have enough skilled workers to deliver the NHI's mandate. 'By driving down service tariffs, the NHI risks accelerating the emigration or exit of healthcare professionals from the sector altogether.' The country is already facing a medical professional 'brain drain'. A survey conducted last year by the South Africa Medical Association, which represents approximately 17 000 doctors across South Africa, showed that as many as 38% of its members intended to leave the country in response to the implementation of the NHI scheme. Last month, Ramaphosa defended the Act after the Board of Healthcare Funders, which represents most private medical schemes, said he flouted his constitutional duty by failing to scrutinise its constitutionality when he signed the NHI into law. It added that the president ignored submissions that pointed to the patent constitutional defects in the legislation. The Pretoria High Court ruled in favour of the board. Ramaphosa launched an appeal, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and erred in finding that his decision to sign the new law was reviewable. The court found no merit in his argument on the separation of powers and said the step of assenting to a Bill was but part of a lawmaking process that was a reviewable exercise in public power.