Healthcare reduction
The politics of Pakistan are very much territorial in nature and divided by land
Despite attempting to portray nationalistic images and woo citizens from all provinces, the politics of Pakistan are very much territorial in nature and divided by land. With power devolved to provincial governments granting more autonomy after the Eighteenth Amendment, federal proposals do not always get the laurels expected at the centre. Such was the case with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s National Health Programme seeking to facilitate impoverished citizens with healthcare needs. Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh were not interested in reallocating funds, arguing that the federal scheme should be provided for by the federal government.
In the stalemate, which now finally has a resolution, the only ones really being affected were, once again, impoverished citizens. In the resolution, budgets have been reduced and the number of families that can be accommodated for primary health insurance significantly decreased; just 10 per cent of K-P families and 35 per cent of families in Sindh mentioned in the original plan will be receiving the benefits. The simultaneous raise in the operational and human resources budget is perplexing when the priority mission of the scheme is to provide funding for primary care to citizens. Announcements to budget cuts in health insurance are most certainly frowned upon as citizens, of whom nearly 30 per cent live below the poverty line, continue facing hardships.
Despite the programme’s snazzy website, the behind-the-scenes events and details are not quite worked out yet. The notion of the programme is welcome in a country that has a healthcare system that’s rather disorganised with patients running from pillar to post lining up early morning for medical tests and late night for consultations. However, given our large population, the scheme needs to be planned more carefully. For a country still inflicted with centuries-old diseases that have been eradicated elsewhere through strong vaccination programmes, budget cuts to healthcare are regressive.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2017.
In the stalemate, which now finally has a resolution, the only ones really being affected were, once again, impoverished citizens. In the resolution, budgets have been reduced and the number of families that can be accommodated for primary health insurance significantly decreased; just 10 per cent of K-P families and 35 per cent of families in Sindh mentioned in the original plan will be receiving the benefits. The simultaneous raise in the operational and human resources budget is perplexing when the priority mission of the scheme is to provide funding for primary care to citizens. Announcements to budget cuts in health insurance are most certainly frowned upon as citizens, of whom nearly 30 per cent live below the poverty line, continue facing hardships.
Despite the programme’s snazzy website, the behind-the-scenes events and details are not quite worked out yet. The notion of the programme is welcome in a country that has a healthcare system that’s rather disorganised with patients running from pillar to post lining up early morning for medical tests and late night for consultations. However, given our large population, the scheme needs to be planned more carefully. For a country still inflicted with centuries-old diseases that have been eradicated elsewhere through strong vaccination programmes, budget cuts to healthcare are regressive.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2017.