Latest news with #WorldHealthOrganization
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- Health
- The Hindu
One in five women in WHO Southeast Asia region covered under health insurance, study estimates
About one in every five women in the WHO Southeast Asia Region, including India, are covered under a health insurance, a study published in The Lancet Regional Health Southeast Asia has estimated. One in eight women in the region — defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) — were enrolled in social security schemes. At the same time, only one in thirteen had privately purchased or commercial insurance, the analysis reveals. The 'WHO Southeast Asia Region' includes India, among other countries such as Bangladesh, Myanmar and Indonesia. Researchers from Health Systems Transformation Platform and Population Council Consulting Private Limited, New Delhi, also found that one in four men in the region had health insurance coverage, with the highest prevalence seen in Indonesia at over 56 per cent and lowest in Myanmar at about 1.5 per cent. In India, the prevalence of health insurance uptake was 53 per cent among women and 56 per cent among men, the team found. The highest levels of health insurance coverage for women and men in the region were found in Indonesia, while the lowest levels were reported in Bangladesh and Myanmar, respectively. Addressing limited health insurance coverage Equity in accessing quality healthcare without experiencing financial hardship is key to achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) — one of the core aims of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals — especially in low- and middle-income countries in the WHO Southeast Asia Region, the authors of the study said. They added that healthcare demands and costs are expected to rise in the region as populations age. However, high out-of-pocket expenditures remain a barrier despite health insurance programmes in the region, they said. The study analysed socioeconomic and demographic factors to estimate coverage under any health insurance, using data from Demographic and Health Surveys (2015-2022) conducted in the WHO Southeast Asia Region every five years. "Approximately one in five women in the region were covered by any form of health insurance," the authors wrote. "In contrast, one in four men in the region had any health insurance coverage, with the highest prevalence observed in Indonesia (56.6 per cent) and the lowest in Myanmar (1.4 per cent)," they wrote. Older age, higher education levels, and higher exposure to media were found to positively influence insurance coverage for both men and women in India, Indonesia, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Beyond individual factors Further, beyond individual factors, contextual ones such as government commitment, design and implementation of insurance schemes and economic conditions are crucial in determining health insurance coverage, the authors said. Traditional beliefs and a lack of trust in formal financial systems can hinder insurance adoption among South Asian communities, they added. Evidence suggests that in rural areas of India, Nepal and Bangladesh, people relied on community-based informal support systems over formal insurance, reflecting cultural preferences that affect enrolment rates, the team said. Bridging the health coverage gap The study's findings, therefore, highlight that country-specific contexts need to be addressed to effectively expand health insurance coverage, the authors said. They suggested policies should prioritise building sustainable health financing systems, making healthcare infrastructures more resilient, and fostering widespread awareness in the community about the benefits of health insurance. Further, strategies aimed at resolving socioeconomic disparities and for the underinsured populations are vital in advancing equitable health insurance access and accelerating progress towards UHC, the team said.
Bangkok Post
17 hours ago
- Health
- Bangkok Post
High rates hurt public healthcare
May's 78th World Health Assembly (WHA) -- the annual meeting of the World Health Organization's member states -- ended on a self-congratulatory note. From an agreement on pandemic preparedness to increases in assessed contributions to the WHO, there were plenty of achievements to tout. But there was an elephant in the room, hiding behind a banner reading "One World for Health": the high borrowing costs faced by African countries. Despite being the world's youngest continent, Africa bears 24% of the global disease burden. Yet it accounts for less than 1% of global health spending. In 2001, African countries decided to take matters into their own hands, pledging to devote at least 15% of national budgets to health. Yet more than two decades later, only two countries have reached that target. On average, governments on the continent allocate a mere 1.48%of their GDP to health, while 37% of health spending comes directly out of citizens' pockets. Borrowing costs are a major reason why. Whereas high-income countries borrow at an interest rate of 2–3%, their African counterparts can face rates above 10%. This discrepancy -- which reflects investors' perception of heightened risk in African economies -- means that governments on the continent often must choose between making debt payments or buying medicines, hiring doctors and building health clinics. The cost of capital costs lives. Consider Kenya's ill-fated Managed Equipment Services (MES) programme, a public-private partnership aimed at enhancing service availability at hospitals through the provision of modern equipment. The programme did provide high-tech equipment to many hospitals. But, given the cost of capital for investment, Kenya could not deliver the infrastructure or personnel to use it. In Ghana, where debt-service costs have left little fiscal space, nearly 75% of the government's health budget now goes to health-care workers' wages, leaving little funding for other crucial expenses, from medicines to maternal-health programmes. In 2023, a shortage of antimalarial drugs forced some rural clinics to direct patients to purchase the medicine they needed directly from private pharmacies. Many families thus faced a harrowing choice between being driven further into poverty and sending a loved one to an early grave. For many African countries, high borrowing costs have contributed to dependence on the goodwill of foreign donors. But aid-dependent health-care systems are fundamentally fragile. We saw this during the Covid-19 pandemic, and we are seeing it now, as European countries scale back their development spending to free up space for other priorities, and the United States dismantles its entire aid apparatus, beginning with the US Agency for International Development (USAID). In Malawi, those cuts have already forced critical programmes, such as for HIV treatment and prevention, to scramble for funds. Local NGOs have been forced to lay off outreach workers, and patients with tuberculosis or HIV have gone without care. As one community health nurse in South Africa lamented, "My fear is mortality is going to be very high". Africans' health cannot depend on the generosity of others. Governments must be able to invest in stable, resilient, self-sustaining health systems. To raise funds, Senegal and Zambia are experimenting with "health taxes" on alcohol and sugary drinks. Debt-for-health swaps in countries like Seychelles have shown promise. Nigeria's diaspora health bonds could unlock billions in financing if they are matched with concessional capital and guarantees from multilateral banks. Ultimately, there is no substitute for affordable, predictable capital. That is why lowering borrowing costs must be a key priority at the G20 summit this November. This means, first, tackling structural factors such as outdated international regulations and biases in risk assessments. It also means delivering timely and meaningful debt relief. This will require innovative mechanisms, such as debt-for-health swaps, and increasing the use of pause clauses in existing loans and new debt contracts that allow for debt payment suspension when a pandemic strikes. A third priority must be to secure continued political support for multilateral health programmes -- such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria -- thereby ensuring continuity in the delivery of the relevant health services. Finally, the G20 must seek to expand African countries' access to concessional financing for health infrastructure through multilateral development banks. The G20 is the right forum for these actions. Its mandate includes addressing global challenges, promoting economic cooperation, and fostering global stability. The cost of capital is beyond any one country's capacity to address, and it is producing a destabilising global-health emergency. The upcoming G20 summit, the first to be held in Africa -- and the second with the African Union as a permanent member -- represents a particularly fitting moment for such action. Within African countries, mechanisms -- based on civil-society engagement -- for ensuring accountability for how funds are spent are also essential. But the first step must be to free up the funds. To achieve "One World for Health", all countries must be able to access the means to invest in health care. ©2025 Project Syndicate Serah Makka is Africa Executive Director at The ONE Campaign. Rosemary Mburu is Executive Director of WACI Health.
The Star
17 hours ago
- Business
- The Star
Push for digitisation is a global threat
L Oosthuizen | Published 59 minutes ago There has been a noticeable, aggressive push for digitisation around the World by unelected global technocrats and philanthropists. The World Economic Forum, the United Nations and the World Health Organization have become a breeding ground for socialist, Marxist ideologies, and the writing is on the wall for all of us. Individuals such as Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, George Soros and Klaus Schwab, to name a few, have become the engineers of global chaos, fear, control and manipulation. Lockdowns are being pushed while profiting from vaccines, and policies are being funded which destroy economies and mental health. These madmen don't just spread viruses, they infect society with fear, division and digital enslavement. They called it a Pandemic, but the real virus wears a suit, sits on panels, funds media narratives and engineers crises from behind the scenes. The CDC receives millions from the Gates Foundation, Pfizer, and other Big Pharma giants through the CDC Foundation, which bypasses Congressional oversight. These are not conspiracy theories! It's happening before our very eyes! These are hazardous people, playing perilous games. To top it all, central banks are quietly building a new financial prison, where programmable money will allow these psychopaths to control how and when your money is spent! Do not be fooled for one second when governments around the World are telling us that digitising our home affairs system to enable digital ID, will 'protect us from fraudsters', or 'flush out illegal these initiatives all sound perfectly normal and carries a degree of credibility, the hidden agenda behind digital IDs are being kept from us. It's all a smoke screen, and we are busy falling for it. Newly developed Banking services, such as facial recognition, are just another tool with which globalists are herding us all together into the pen of digital nightmares! Lastly, Elites aren't buying tech stocks. They are buying soil, seeds and water rights. When inflation hits, supply chains break, and war breaks out, land wins every time! No wonder Bill Gates is buying so much farm land in the USA, among other nefarious things such as spraying fresh produce with chemicals to make it look fresher for longer, generically modifying our foods, injecting vaccines into live stock and spraying harmful chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere to try block out the sun- who knows where all of this is going to end! My best guess is that Agenda 2030 is front and centre of these evil people's minds. Vaccine mandates, digital ID, carbon emissions tracking, social credit scores like those being used in all leads to one destination: unimaginable, irreversible global, digital imprisonment. The only losers in this story are you and I, the average tax-paying citizen! It's time to resist! It's time to start asking more questions! When the DA's Leon Shreiber starts mentioning Digitisation of Home affairs, be careful not to get lost in the smokescreen of 'betterment for everyone'- we all know, or should take note, of the DA's ties with the World Economic Forum. L Oosthuizen Durban
Time Business News
a day ago
- Health
- Time Business News
The Digital Therapist: Can AI Replace Human Counseling?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping modern healthcare, and one of its most transformative frontiers is AI in mental health. With the rise of AI-driven therapy apps like Woebot and Wysa, a critical question arises: Can AI truly replace human therapists, or is emotional intelligence still uniquely human? Several AI in mental health tools have emerged with global impact: Woebot Health , developed by psychologists at Stanford University, uses cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) principles. A 2017 study published in JMIR Mental Health found that Woebot significantly reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety in college students over just two weeks (Fitzpatrick et al., 2017). , developed by psychologists at Stanford University, uses cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) principles. A found that Woebot significantly reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety in college students over just two weeks (Fitzpatrick et al., 2017). Wysa , an AI-enabled mental health app endorsed by the UK's National Health Service (NHS) , has more than 6.5 million users across 95 countries. It combines AI support with access to human therapists and has been used by the World Health Organization (WHO) for community mental health interventions during COVID-19. , an AI-enabled mental health app endorsed by the , has more than across 95 countries. It combines AI support with access to human therapists and has been used by the World Health Organization (WHO) for community mental health interventions during COVID-19. Replika, an emotionally intelligent chatbot, gained attention when users began forming deep emotional bonds with their 'AI friends.' In some cases, users reported a decrease in loneliness, while others voiced concerns over developing psychological dependence on a non-human companion (The Washington Post, 2023). These tools demonstrate how AI in mental health services is becoming more accessible and scalable. Several factors explain the surge in usage of AI in mental health therapy: Accessibility: Available 24/7, regardless of location. Available 24/7, regardless of location. Affordability: Free or low-cost compared to traditional therapy. Free or low-cost compared to traditional therapy. Anonymity: Removes the stigma of seeking help. Removes the stigma of seeking help. Crisis Support: Offers instant tools for anxiety and emotional regulation. A 2021 report by The Lancet Psychiatry revealed that nearly one in three people worldwide lack access to mental health services. AI is emerging as a scalable solution to bridge this treatment gap. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when mental health issues surged, AI tools became lifelines. A study conducted by the University of Oxford (2021) reported that Wysa saw a 77% increase in global usage, with anxiety and stress-related queries peaking during lockdown periods. Users from low-resource settings reported that the app helped them manage isolation and depressive symptoms when no therapist was available. Man chat with AI to express emotions The core criticism remains: AI can simulate empathy—but cannot feel it. Machines process patterns, not emotions. While helpful in managing mood, they may: Miss trauma cues Misinterpret cultural context Offer generic, impersonal responses As noted by Dr. Sherry Turkle, psychologist and MIT professor: 'Empathy requires vulnerability and shared experience—machines cannot do that.' ( Reclaiming Conversation , Penguin Press, 2015) Moreover, the FDA has yet to formally approve any AI mental health tool as a licensed therapy provider, highlighting the gap between innovation and regulation. Leading mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), emphasize that AI can complement but not replace human therapists. For example: Wysa partners with licensed clinicians who monitor user progress. partners with licensed clinicians who monitor user progress. Woebot makes it clear it is not a crisis tool and recommends users reach out to emergency services when needed. AI can assist with: Mood tracking and journaling Daily check-ins and goal setting Behavioral nudges using CBT or mindfulness But severe cases—like PTSD, suicidal ideation, or trauma therapy—require a human touch. With sensitive mental health data involved, the ethics of AI therapy are under scrutiny: A 2022 Mozilla Foundation report criticized mental health apps for poor data protection , stating that 28 out of 32 apps they reviewed shared user data with third parties. criticized mental health apps for , stating that 28 out of 32 apps they reviewed shared user data with third parties. Many apps operate without transparent consent models , risking exploitation or data breaches. , risking exploitation or data breaches. Algorithmic bias and lack of diversity in training data may lead to misinterpretation or exclusion of marginalized groups. Countries like the UK, Canada, and the EU are now working on AI ethics frameworks to regulate digital therapy tools. AI presents a groundbreaking opportunity to extend mental health care to billions who lack access. But as powerful as these tools may be, they are still limited by what they cannot replicate—human intuition, empathy, cultural understanding, and trust. In the words of Dr. Thomas Insel, former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH): 'The therapeutic alliance—a relationship built on trust—is what heals. That's not something AI can replicate—yet.' For now, the most promising path forward is a hybrid model: AI for scale and efficiency, humans for depth and compassion. This article was written with the encouragement and inspiration of my professor, Professor Dr. Sobia Masood , whose guidance continues to shape my academic journey. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Health
- Business Standard
WHO issues first global clinical guide on mosquito-borne diseases: Details
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released its first-ever integrated guidelines on the clinical management of arboviral diseases, including dengue, chikungunya, Zika, and yellow fever in a major step towards strengthening global response to mosquito-borne viral diseases. The new guidelines, launched earlier this month, aim to help frontline healthcare providers and hospitals manage both mild and severe cases of these diseases using standardised, evidence-based protocols. With arboviral infections posing a growing threat across tropical and subtropical regions, the WHO said the guidelines would also support policymakers and health administrators in boosting epidemic and pandemic preparedness. What are arboviral diseases? According to WHO, arboviral diseases are most commonly transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. These include dengue, chikungunya, Zika, and yellow fever. The Aedes aegypti mosquito is capable of spreading multiple viruses in the same region, often at the same time. These infections affect more than half of the global population, with over 5.6 billion people currently at risk. The diseases often begin with flu-like symptoms such as fever, joint pain, and rash, making clinical diagnosis difficult in the absence of laboratory tests. In some cases, complications can be severe or life-threatening. Why WHO's integrated guidelines on arboviral diseases are needed According to WHO, outbreaks of arboviral diseases are becoming more frequent, widespread, and severe, driven by a combination of ecological, social, and economic factors. As a result, the geographical range of these infections is expanding rapidly. The clinical challenge is compounded by the fact that dengue, chikungunya, Zika, and yellow fever often begin with similar early symptoms making it difficult to distinguish between them, especially in regions where diagnostic tools are limited. In some areas, multiple arboviruses may be circulating at the same time. In this context, the WHO guidelines offer a unified, evidence-based approach to diagnosis and care. They are also intended as a practical reference for policymakers, health system leaders, and hospital administrators in developing national and regional preparedness strategies for future outbreaks and pandemics. Key recommendations by WHO According to WHO, the new guidelines offer clinical management protocols for four of the most common and widespread arboviral infections in humans: dengue, chikungunya, Zika, and yellow fever. For patients with non-severe, suspected or confirmed arboviral disease: Use protocolised oral fluid treatment to prevent dehydration Use paracetamol or metamizole for treating pain or fever Avoid non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs), irrespective of severity Avoid corticosteroids in non-severe cases Use crystalloid fluids (not colloids) for intravenous hydration Monitor capillary refill time and lactate levels to guide fluid management Use passive leg raise test in patients with shock to assess fluid responsiveness Avoid corticosteroids and immunoglobulin therapies in severe cases Avoid platelet transfusion in patients with low platelet counts unless active bleeding is present Use intravenous N-acetylcysteine in cases of liver failure caused by yellow fever Use experimental therapies like monoclonal immunoglobulin TY014 and sofosbuvir for yellow fever only in research settings The WHO noted that the recommendations are based on the latest available evidence and will be updated as new data emerges. These guidelines are seen as a critical step in harmonising care and improving outcomes in regions where arboviral diseases are endemic or emerging.
