Introduction
Public health could be seen in terms of being administrative responses towards the need to safeguard and promote health aspects of individuals in its society. Thus, Public health envisages prophylactic health care planning for better application of health resources for people in the United States. While aspects of identification and curing of various kinds of diseases are surely within the agenda of public health, this is not its main task, which, in its broadest scope would embrace, preventive and protective measures of public health. It would not be out of context to mention here that “while individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions, their behavior is heavily influenced by the communities and neighborhoods in which they live. Policies and investments at the local, state, territorial, tribal, and federal levels guide and facilitate actions that all stakeholders must take to improve health, including preparedness for large-scale health incidents.” (National health security strategy of the United States of America, 2009, p.6).
Thus, public health as one gleans it to be is not solely the responsibility of Federal, State, or local government, but also needs total support and co-operation of all stakeholders to be accepted and enforced for the public good. Bereft of mass appeal and support, public health schemes and projects would not be able to meet health care challenges that continue to beset them, much less achieve, to a reasonable degree, the aims and objectives of its charter.
Different kinds of partnerships that Health Agencies could have
The health care scenario in the United States, like trends all over the world, has changed over the last decade, perhaps due to the results occurring in the aftermath of 9/11, anthrax outbreaks, SARS and more recently, in 2009, the H1N1 influenza attacks. These cannot be viewed as isolated health care issues, confined to just one country, or a few States- in truth, these have become global issues that need to be tacked on international levels. Thus, it has dawned, and rightly so on public health administrators of countries that partnership with Cash-rich private sector enterprises could not only be mutually beneficial but could also ensure amelioration of major health care issues through effective, result-oriented partnerships. In keeping with this line of thinking, many global pharmaceutical majors have teamed up with Non-governmental organizations (NGO) to create better health care solutions.
The various kinds of partnerships that health agencies could have are:
- With private sector undertakings for ameliorating health issues and ensuring better health to citizens
- With academic institutions for new treatment and healing processes
- Interacting with global aid bodies like World Bank (WB), World Health Organizations (WHO), etc.
- Interfacing with NGO’s that are engaged in active partnerships with
“Private for profit” companies for promoting health care matters. (Reich, 2000, para.1).
Analyze two US Public Health partnerships
The two United States Public health partnerships are:
- Partnerships between Glaxo-Wellcome – Task Force for Child Survival & Development – World Health Organization- Rollback Malaria.
- Collaboration between USG, PEPFAR, Case Foundation and other partners for financing and providing potable water in parts of Saharan Africa.
First project
Malaria is one of the worst scourges of any century and has killed millions. While most developed countries have eradicated malaria, many developing countries are struggling to come to terms with this killer. “At least one million people die of malaria every year, most of them young children in impoverished sub-Saharan Africa.” (Harvard malaria initiative, 2010, para.1).
Under such circumstances, this private-public partnership between a major pharmaceutical player, GWC and public organization TFCSD is more than welcome.
The main objectives of this Who sponsored program is to reduce the agonies of malaria patients by free distribution of Malarone in areas where the disease is resistant to conventional treatment, to explore ways and means by which anti-malarial drug could be controlled and finally, “To explore ways to develop public/private partnerships for improving the health of people at risk from tropical disease.” (Lucas, 2000, p.7).
Thus, the main aspect of this private-public partnership, has as its core, the dovetailing of common objectives – of the drugmaker to donate drugs for free use in endemic areas, control and upgrade positive medicinal objectives and finally, eradicate the menace of tropical diseases, in this regions as far as is practicable possible.
Second project
The second PPP health Initiative that would be examined would be the alliance between “The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)” and USAID, along with Play Pumps International, Case Foundation, and other private sector partners. (Public private partnerships, 2009, para.1).
The United States Government has teamed with corporate called Play Pumps International, Case Foundation and other private sector partners to construct a $60m play pump combine. The United States Government has helped by contributing $10m for the installation of Play pumps which could provide access to potable drinking water to around “650 schools, health centers, and HIV-affected areas in 10 sub-Saharan African countries, bringing the benefits of clean drinking water to up to 10 million people by 2010.” (Harnessing the power of play, 2009, para.3).
Sub-Saharan African countries form one of the poorest countries in the world and face innumerable problems in terms of drought and diseases caused by lack of potable drinking water facilities. This project may be the first in a series of measures designed to improve the plight of poor and marginalized African masses, especially the child population deeply affected by lack of clean and pure drinking water facilities.
What are its purposes?
The first initiative has the objective of eradicating tropical diseases like malaria and also working in tandem with other private and public agencies and corporations to improve the health standards of the people in these areas. This initiative also underpins the need for creating and sustaining preventive approaches and strategies towards diseases like malaria. While funding and organizational needs are important, it is also necessary that long-term future programs be evolved that could control and mitigate the effects of such diseases on the general population, including womenfolk and children. The second initiative is to provide clean and safe drinking water to sub-Saharan regions plagued with drought and lack of potable water.
How are they structured?
In the case of the first initiative, Smith Kline French (Formerly Glaxo Welcome) provides the free drugs which would be distributed with available resources of Task Force for Child Survival & Development under the aegis of WHO, and other use providers with “up to 1 million free dozes per year globally through a targeted donation program.” (Buse & Walt, 2000, p.701). Under the second initiative, the USG and PEPFAR works in tandem with Play Pumps International, Case Foundation and other private sector partners to construct potable water facilities in sub-Saharan Africa
Have they achieved their objectives and been evaluated?
To a very large extent, they have met their objectives and have been evaluated. These are mainly because their goals are clear cut and simply designed with all players being committed to their achievements. Besides, the social improvement factor has remained at the forefront of these initiatives and has not been compromised. Besides, the upfront support of players at all levels has been intrinsic to its success.
Conclude by contrasting the two projects. How are they similar and different from each other?
Well, for one thing, both are socially oriented health programs which have as their core objectives, the health safety, security, welfare of the poorer sections of our society, For another, the programs have been well identified in terms of their scope, operational pursuits and goal achievement. The underlying urge to serve suffering humanity is underpinned in both these initiatives. Moreover, in both the cases, the major beneficiaries have been the inhabitants of Saharan Africa, who have a very poor track record of health care measures for their population.
However, in the first initiative, a pharmaceutical major has donated drugs to meet anti-malarial drives, while in the second it is the USG and PEPFAR who are playing lead roles, although not involved in the actual execution of the project which is done by other local agencies. While in the first case it is the donation of drugs, in the second it is water aid through financial support rendered to the poorer sections of society in sub-Saharan Africa through public-private partnerships.
The final conclusion to this study
The controversy surrounding public-private collaborations or partnerships notwithstanding, it is believed that such partnerships are indispensable in current scenarios, where one party on its own, cannot take up major initiatives without the active technical, commercial and administrative support skills of other players. This fact has been aptly demonstrated in a series of successful private-public combines where challenging tasks were taken up and completed with relative ease. Besides, the future is going to be even more challenging and demanding for players and it would nigh be impossible for individual players to demonstrate or achieve any major achievement, especially in health care domains, without the active participation and support of groups or institutions who need to be major players in these schemes and render useful service for this cause.
Another aspect that needs to be understood is that funding and its critical utilization are major aspects that need to be considered, more so since resourcing is scarce and many elements need to be serviced. Each player into the PP arena brings specialized skills and resources, like technical competency, organizational abilities, expert knowledge of marketing, financial prowess, knowledge of local languages and cultures, all of which are major factors- in their own right. The pooling of joint resources, which constitutes the crux of private-public enterprises, needs to be finely demarcated and communicated, thus avoiding causes for later controversies and disputes. When all parties in a PPP agree on the same issue, in the same way, problems would be fewer and far between.
Empirical tests and tested research have been unequivocal on the fact that in most cases, private-public combines are very beneficial. Besides, being an important tool that stretches limited resources to their limits, it also imbues good communications, innovative thinking, teamwork, skill combinations and critical performance on public health partnerships, which, in retrospect, is the key factor in such kinds of schemes. It is in the own interests of Governments, quasi-governmental institutions and agencies, and public and private sector collaborators, that each player should be in a position to carry out their assigned tasks most competently and responsibly, such that impact of negative aspects, caused by lowered standards of performance, do not infringe upon its ultimate completion, or evaluation of the project.
Reference List
Buse, K., & Walt, G. (2000). Policy and practice: Global public-private partnerships: Part II – What are the health issues for global governance? World Health Organization, p.701. Web.
Harnessing the power of play. (2009). The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Web.
Harvard malaria initiative. (2010). Harvard School of Public Health. Web.
Lucas, A. (2000). Public-private partnerships: Illustrative examples. Background Paper, TDR, p.7. Web.
National health security strategy of the United States of America. (2009). US Department of Health and Human Services, p.6. Web.
Public private partnerships. (2009). The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Web.
Reich, M.R. (2000). Commentary: Public – private partnerships for public health. Nature Medicine. Web.