Health and Welfare Without Borders: Lessons for Building Resilient Systems
1. Introduction: Health Is More Than Hospitals
When we talk about “health systems,” most people picture hospitals,
doctors in white coats, or machines that beep and flash. However, real health
is measured differently. It is about whether a mother can safely deliver her
baby without going bankrupt. It is about whether someone with a disability can
visit a clinic without shame. The question is whether vaccines reach
communities before the next outbreak. It is about whether a young worker has
the chance to live long enough to raise her kids.
When health fails, the damage spreads. Economies falter, societies
fracture, and people lose faith in their leaders. The pandemic reminded us of
that harsh truth. However, it also offered a spark of hope: countries can learn
from one another, and by sharing lessons, they can rebuild systems that are
stronger and fairer.
Resilient and inclusive health systems are not just about bricks, beds,
and scalpels. They are about politics, economics, and the invisible threads of
trust that connect citizens with the people who care for them. COVID-19 exposed
cracks everywhere, forcing us to see resilience not as something you either
have or don’t, but as a muscle, something you train, stretch, and strengthen
over time. Grimm and colleagues describe health systems as “complex adaptive
systems,” where weak governance or poor resource allocation in one area
eventually drags the entire system down (Grimm et al., 2021).
Consider Sub-Saharan Africa, where crises regularly test fragile systems.
Research indicates that when leadership and workforce management are strong,
health services respond more effectively and maintain community cohesion
(Ayanore et al., 2019). Leadership is not just about ministers or directors; it
is about local decision-makers who keep clinics running and build trust on the
ground.
Communities themselves are at the heart of resilience. Huda and
colleagues argue that health initiatives are most effective when they extend
beyond hospital walls and reach into households, combining treatment with
prevention (Huda et al., 2024). Liberia’s Ebola response proved this: local
networks stepped in when formal systems failed, and community resilience
mitigated the impact. Nepal and Ethiopia tell similar stories. Community health
workers became bridges between governments and citizens, providing not just
services but also confidence that someone was listening (Rawat et al., 2023).
We have also seen how multi-sector approaches pay off. Rwanda’s reforms
showed the power of aligning resources across education, healthcare, and
governance. When ministries collaborate instead of working in silos, universal
health coverage stops being a dream and starts looking like a plan.
So where do we go from here? As countries recover from the pandemic,
resilience must stop being a buzzword and start being a practice. Systems
thinking and viewing health as a web of interdependent parts provide a roadmap.
It means identifying weak links before they break and learning from mistakes
while there is still time to make adjustments.
Building truly resilient health systems is not just about budgets or
policy papers. It demands cultural shifts: leaders willing to listen,
communities empowered to act, and institutions humble enough to learn and adapt.
If we get this right, we will create a world where access to health is not a
privilege but a given, where every person has a fair chance not just to
survive, but to thrive.
2.
Universal Health Coverage: Not a Dream, But a Political
Choice
Universal Health Coverage is not charity; it is a decision. Countries
either choose to make it happen or they do not. Thailand leapt early, and today
it is often held up as one of Asia’s strongest examples. Rwanda, still
rebuilding after genocide, created Mutuelles de Santé, a grassroots insurance
system that now protects millions. Indonesia, meanwhile, rolled out its Jaminan
Kesehatan Nasional (JKN) program with great ambition, but its rapid expansion
left big questions about financial sustainability. The lesson is simple: UHC is
possible anywhere. What matters most is not wealth, but political courage.
Take Thailand. The government decided to finance health through general
taxation, and that choice dramatically reduced out-of-pocket expenses for
ordinary citizens. Families no longer had to fear that one illness could send
them spiralling into poverty. Researchers have demonstrated that strong
political commitment, rather than GDP, was the primary driver of this progress
(Tangcharoensathien et al., 2014). The country also invested in purchasing
healthcare strategically, ensuring resources were distributed fairly and
efficiently. The result? A system that reduced inequalities and made healthcare
accessible to nearly everyone.
Rwanda tells a different, but equally powerful story. After the
devastation of genocide, its leaders knew rebuilding trust required more than
speeches; it required action. By creating a community-based insurance scheme,
the government expanded coverage across income groups and built confidence in
public institutions. Health outcomes improved, but perhaps more importantly,
people began to feel that the system was theirs.
Indonesia offers a cautionary perspective. Its national health insurance
scheme aimed to cover more than 200 million citizens. While bold in vision, the
program quickly hit financial headwinds. Expanding coverage without careful
fiscal planning created strains that threatened its long-term survival (Pisani
et al., 2016). The case reminds us that political will must be paired with
sound economic strategy. Otherwise, ambition risks becoming a burden rather
than a breakthrough.
Across these examples, one truth stands out: UHC is political at its
core. Leaders decide whether to prioritise health, and those choices ripple
outward into the lives of millions. Community engagement strengthens these
efforts. When local health workers are integrated into systems, they can extend
services to the most vulnerable populations. Additionally, when communities
participate in shaping policy, programs become more relevant and sustainable.
Grassroots financing schemes show that governments do not have to carry
the burden alone. Well-designed community health initiatives can spread costs,
increase ownership, and ensure even the poorest households are not left behind.
They also highlight a deeper point: health is not just a personal
responsibility, it is a collective one.
Ultimately, UHC is not only a domestic concern but also a key component
of a global agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals place UHC at the centre
of reducing inequality and improving well-being. However, these goals only
become real when national leaders choose to act, mobilising both local and
international support.
So, is UHC a dream? Hardly. Thailand and Rwanda prove it is achievable.
Indonesia’s struggles remind us that it is fragile without the right
foundations in place. Ultimately, the deciding factor is not the size of a
country’s economy, but rather the courage of its politics.
3.
Vaccines: Factories Alone Do not Save Lives
The rush for COVID-19 vaccines taught the world a blunt truth: factories
alone do not save lives. You cannot build trust, distribution networks, and
regulatory strength overnight. India’s Vaccine Maitri showed how local
manufacturing can serve both domestic needs and global solidarity. Africa’s
technology transfer hubs proved that building factories matters, but they are
just the starting point. What sustains vaccination efforts are strong systems, regulation,
demand forecasting, and long-term financing.
Think about India. With Vaccine Maitri, literally “Vaccine
Friendship,” the country utilised its manufacturing capabilities not just for
itself but for dozens of others, especially in the Global South (Jeon &
Kim, 2025). It was a bold gesture of diplomacy and public health. However,
without reliable financing and regulatory frameworks, even that model could
have stumbled. The real success was not just in producing doses, but in pairing
production with systems that enabled shots to reach arms.
Africa offers another lesson. Technology transfer hubs are helping
nations move toward vaccine self-sufficiency. Factories are important, but
without trained staff, proper oversight, and sustainable investment, they risk
becoming white elephants. The African Union’s push to strengthen human capacity
and infrastructure is less flashy than ribbon-cutting ceremonies, but it is
what keeps vaccines flowing long after the headlines fade (Lopes et al., 2023).
Money, of course, is the constant hurdle. Many low- and middle-income
countries still lack mechanisms to guarantee steady funding for vaccine
production or affordable pricing for citizens. Studies show that financing is
not just about finding money in a crisis; it is about building flexible systems
that can adapt to new waves of disease without collapsing under pressure
(Magalhaes et al., 2023). Without this kind of foresight, manufacturers cannot
compete globally, and communities are left waiting.
Regulation is another make-or-break factor. During the pandemic, lengthy
approval processes slowed down access. Streamlining these pathways, primarily
through regional harmonisation, can reduce delays and expedite the delivery of
vaccines to clinics (Dutt et al., 2024). The World Health Organisation has
already urged countries to adapt their frameworks, but the lesson is clear:
speed matters, and bureaucracy costs lives.
Then there is demand forecasting. Too often, countries were caught
flat-footed, either with warehouses full of unused doses or empty shelves while
outbreaks spread. Investing in predictive analytics and more innovative
inventory systems could change that. By analysing patterns of vaccine uptake,
governments can adjust production in real-time and avoid the inequities
observed when wealthy countries hoarded supplies while poorer nations waited
(Kis et al., 2021).
The bigger picture? Vaccines do not exist in a vacuum. They require
trust, logistics, and cooperation across governments, manufacturers, and global
organisations. Without that ecosystem, production lines will hum while
communities remain vulnerable. With it, we have a fighting chance to make
vaccine equity more than a slogan.
Future pandemics will not wait. If countries want to be ready, they must
invest now in systems, not just steel.
4. PPPs: Public
Meets Private, But Who Holds the Risk?
Public–private partnerships (PPPs) in healthcare often come wrapped in
glossy promises: shiny new hospitals, faster technology, and injections of
private capital. On paper, it appears to be a win-win. However, scratch the
surface, and a more complicated truth emerges. If the risks are not shared
fairly, PPPs can all too easily privatise profits while leaving the public to
foot the bill.
Take the Philippines. Its PPP hospital modernisation project was meant to
bring cutting-edge facilities, but instead drew heavy criticism for poor
governance and opaque contracts (Motamedi et al., 2021). Transparency was lacking,
accountability was weaker, and critics warned that private returns were being
made at the expense of the public good. Without oversight, these deals risk
tilting healthcare away from patients and toward profit.
South Africa shows the other side of the coin. There, PPPs have been used
to expand diagnostic lab services, filling crucial gaps in testing capacity
(Nozaki et al., 2021). The difference lies in how the partnerships were
structured. With clear communication, shared goals, and effective
accountability mechanisms in place, these collaborations successfully struck a
balance between efficiency and equity. Patients stayed at the centre, not
investors.
The UK’s early experience with the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is
another cautionary tale. Projects that once promised modernised infrastructure
ended up locking taxpayers into decades of debt, with long repayment periods
and mixed results on service delivery (Alikhani & Damari, 2016). The lesson
is blunt: without smart contracts and rigorous governance, PPPs can become
financial traps that weaken, rather than strengthen, health systems.
At their best, PPPs can bring innovation and resources that governments
alone might struggle to mobilise. At their worst, they exacerbate inequality,
exacerbate debt burdens, and marginalise vulnerable groups. That is why
patient-centred design must remain the non-negotiable foundation. Partnerships
that fail to prioritise equitable access risk leaving behind precisely the
populations that health systems exist to serve (Maru et al., 2017).
For PPPs to be effective, roles and responsibilities must be clearly
defined and understood. Risk-sharing must be fair, and accountability must be
mutual. When both public and private actors are held responsible for outcomes, not
just profits, performance improves and health gains are more widely shared
(Kumar et al., 2018).
Technology adds another twist. Digital health tools introduced through
PPPs can dramatically improve care, but they also raise thorny questions about
privacy, data security, and ethics. Without robust safeguards, what starts as
an innovation can quickly erode public trust.
So what is the bottom line? PPPs can help, but only if they are designed
with patients, not investors, at the centre. The experiences of the
Philippines, South Africa, and the UK all point in the same direction:
governance matters, contracts matter, and values matter. If governments keep
health equity as the guiding star, partnerships can truly strengthen systems.
If not, they risk becoming expensive detours that take us further from the goal
of universal, equitable healthcare.
5. Health Taxes:
Saving Lives While Raising Revenue
Let us be clear, taxes on harmful products are not about government
overreach. They are about saving lives. When done right, they pull double duty:
cutting consumption of dangerous goods while generating funds to strengthen
health systems.
Mexico’s experience makes the case loud and clear. After introducing a
sugary drink tax, purchases of sodas dropped steadily, 5.5% in the first year
and nearly 10% in the years that followed (Donnelly et al., 2018). That is not
just a statistic; it is fewer cases of obesity and diabetes in the long run.
Even better, the money raised went straight into health programs, including
prevention campaigns. A fiscal policy became a health intervention, and
people’s lives were better for it.
The Philippines took a similar route with its “sin tax” on tobacco.
Instead of letting the revenue disappear into a general budget, the government
tied the funds directly to its Universal Health Coverage program (Humphreys et
al., 2023). That meant poor and rural communities suddenly had better access to
care. The tax was not just about discouraging smoking; it was about fairness,
using tobacco profits to pay for services that benefit the entire population.
Across the globe, evidence continues to accumulate. Excise taxes on
sugary drinks, tobacco, and even junk food consistently lower consumption rates
and ease the burden of non-communicable diseases. Hungary, Chile, and others
have demonstrated that a well-placed tax can significantly reshape national
health patterns, while also reducing long-term treatment costs (Csákvári et
al., 2023).
However, the sticking point is a lack of political will. Industry
lobbyists fight these taxes tooth and nail, framing them as job-killers or
“nanny-state” overreach. The truth is, framing matters. When people understand
that these revenues fund hospitals, prevention programs, and health education,
support grows (Christian et al., 2022). Transparency about where the money goes
can turn scepticism into buy-in.
Successful health taxes do not happen in a vacuum. They require
governments to engage citizens, build trust, and clearly show the benefits.
Countries that take time to consult stakeholders and prepare the ground
politically tend to see stronger, more sustainable results (Murukutla et al.,
2023). After all, it is easier to accept a few extra pesos on a soda when you
know it is helping your neighbour get insulin or your local clinic hire another
nurse.
The ripple effects go far beyond health outcomes. These taxes fund
education, improve infrastructure, and strengthen social safety nets. They
become tools not only to reduce harm but also to tackle inequality head-on. The
Philippines’ example makes it plain: when tax money is visibly linked to
healthcare access, it becomes a powerful engine for equity.
The evidence is on the table. Health taxes save lives and raise revenue.
What remains uncertain is whether governments will stand up to corporate
pressure and make the choice. Ultimately, it is a test of priorities: industry
profits versus public health.
6. Disability
Inclusion: The Test of Real Equity
A health system that shuts out people with disabilities is not really a
health system; it is an exclusive club. Accurate equity begins when every
person, regardless of ability, can walk through the doors of a clinic without
fear, stigma, or financial ruin.
Japan, facing a rapidly ageing society, has made disability-inclusive
care central to its health reforms (Harris, 2014). However, in many low-income
countries, disabled citizens are still left outside hospitals, schools, and
workplaces. Their exclusion is not just about inaccessible buildings; it is
about policies and attitudes that subtly convey, “You do not belong here.”
“Leaving no one behind” cannot remain a slogan. It has to translate into
measurable action. This means that governments and health systems must develop
prevention programs, train providers to deliver competent and compassionate
care, and create spaces—both physical and social—that are truly barrier-free
(Masuku et al., 2023).
Prevention is the first line of defence. Early interventions and
community education can reduce the incidence of preventable disabilities. At
the same time, healthcare professionals must be trained not only in the
technical side of disability care but also in empathy and inclusion. When medical
schools weave disability awareness into their curricula, they lay the
foundation for a culture of respect and dignity in healthcare (Badu et al.,
2015).
Legislation is just as critical. Countries that align their laws with the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities create a robust
framework for equity. This includes accessible hospitals, affordable
transportation, and clear financial pathways to care (Thomas et al., 2018).
Making public spaces inclusive does not only remove barriers; it also shifts
cultural perceptions, normalising the presence and participation of people with
disabilities in every sphere of life.
Money matters too. Many people with disabilities face heavier financial
burdens, often worsened by limited job opportunities. Social protections should
be more than safety nets; they should empower people toward independence and
long-term health equity (Collie et al., 2019).
However, perhaps the most important step is listening. Health systems
must include people with disabilities in the design of policies that affect
them. Their voices provide the most accurate picture of the obstacles they face
and the solutions that actually work (Repke & Ipsen, 2020). Participation is
not charity; it is innovative governance.
Countries like South Africa have demonstrated that inclusive reforms can
be both resilient and transformative, showing that equity and dignity can
coexist with efficiency (Lee et al., 2023). Moreover, the only way to ensure
such commitments are kept honest is to measure them. Robust indicators can
reveal whether reforms are reaching those who need them most and where gaps
persist.
In the end, equity is tested not in slogans or speeches but in ramps that
replace stairs, doctors who are trained to listen, and budgets that reflect the
needs of all. Disability inclusion is not optional; it is the foundation of a
health system worthy of the name.
7. Global
Case Studies That Inspire and Warn
Sometimes the best way to understand health reform is to examine where
others have succeeded and where they have stumbled. Across the globe, countries
have experimented with different models. Some became powerful examples to
emulate, while others serve as warnings.
Thailand shows how political will transforms vision into reality. Its
Universal Health Coverage (UHC) reforms, backed by consistent government
support, made healthcare affordable for millions and proved that even
middle-income nations can deliver equity when leaders stay committed
(Tangcharoensathien et al., 2014).
Rwanda tells a story of resilience. After genocide tore apart its
institutions, the government built a grassroots insurance program, Mutuelles
de Santé, that not only expanded coverage but also rebuilt trust between
citizens and the state.
India struck a delicate balance during the COVID-19 pandemic. With its Vaccine
Maitri initiative, it used domestic production capacity to protect its own
population while also sending doses abroad. This “vaccine diplomacy” showed
both the potential and the pressure of being a global supplier.
The Philippines offers a mixed picture. Its PPP hospital modernisation
project promised upgrades but sparked criticism over governance and
transparency. At the same time, its tobacco “sin tax” has been a success,
funding the country’s UHC program and showing how fiscal tools can both curb
harm and expand access (Humphreys et al., 2023).
Mexico stands out for a bold move: taxing soda. The sugary drink tax not
only cut consumption by nearly 10% over time but also raised billions for
health programs (Donnelly et al., 2018). For a country struggling with obesity
and diabetes, this was a double win.
Japan, with an ageing population, has placed disability inclusion at the
heart of its health system. Accessible care is no longer an afterthought, but a
necessity, proving that equity means designing for those who are most often
excluded.
Ethiopia shows the quiet power of community health workers. By training
locals to deliver prevention and primary care, the country has extended
services deep into rural areas, making care accessible where hospitals and
doctors are scarce.
Brazil enshrined health as a constitutional right. Its Unified Health
System (SUS) reflects a national belief that access to care should be
guaranteed, not negotiated, a principle that continues to shape its health
landscape today.
The European Union provided another lesson during the pandemic. Joint
vaccine procurement helped member states avoid destructive competition and
ensured smaller nations were not left behind. Solidarity, it turns out, can be
a survival strategy.
Indonesia, with its JKN program, showed both ambition and risk. Covering
over 200 million people is no small feat, but without a stable financing model,
the system faces sustainability struggles that could undermine its
achievements.
Together, these stories paint a vivid picture. Health reforms can succeed
in radically different contexts, but only when politics, people, and systems
align. They also remind us that reforms without strong governance or long-term
planning risk collapsing under their own weight.
The inspiration is clear: equity is possible. The warning is equally
sharp: without courage and foresight, even the best ideas can falter.
8. Strategic Updates
Needed: Beyond the Old Playbook
The world does not need another glossy report filled with the same
recycled recommendations. What it needs are bold updates to strategy, approaches
that tackle today’s health challenges head-on and anticipate tomorrow’s.
·
Regional Collaboration
The pandemic made it painfully clear:
no country can go it alone. Relying on donations or fragmented procurement left
too many nations waiting while others hoarded. Joint vaccine procurement and
regulatory harmonisation across borders, such as the European Union’s
coordinated approach, demonstrate how pooling resources can prevent the chaos
of unequal access (Vogler et al., 2021). COVAX attempted to level the field,
but its limitations revealed that sustainable, regional collaboration is a more
effective path forward.
·
Digital Health Equity
Technology is transforming healthcare,
but only if it reaches everyone. Telemedicine, AI tools, and digital records
can help close rural access gaps and connect patients with doctors in real-time
(Mellado et al., 2021). However, without equity at the centre, digital health
risks are deepening divides instead of bridging them. The challenge is simple
but urgent: design systems that bring technology to those who need it most, not
just to those who can already afford it.
·
Financing Innovation
Money remains the lifeblood of health
systems. Innovative financing, blending taxes, insurance, and PPPs, can create
more resilient funding streams. Mexico’s soda tax is proof that well-designed
fiscal tools can both cut harmful consumption and fund health programs
(Onwujekwe et al., 2023). However, innovation must be paired with transparency.
If people do not know where the money goes, trust evaporates, and reforms
crumble.
·
Equity First
Equity is not an afterthought; it is
the foundation. Health strategies must embed gender, disability, and poverty
perspectives from the start. Japan’s ageing society has shown that
disability-inclusive care is not optional; it is essential (Harris, 2014). The
same logic applies everywhere: if policies do not dismantle barriers for the
most vulnerable, they will only widen inequalities. An “equity-first” lens
ensures that no reform leaves behind those who need it most.
·
Trust Building
Without trust, even the best-designed
health policies fail. Communities need to see where money is spent, how
decisions are made, and whether promises are kept. Public dashboards, community
oversight, and open spending reports turn slogans into accountability (Repke
& Ipsen, 2020). When people feel part of the system, compliance rises, and
collective resilience grows.
The old playbook, with incremental fixes, narrow reforms, and vague
promises, will no longer suffice. Health systems must think regionally, embrace
digital equity, innovate financing, prioritise equity, and, above all, build
trust. These are not abstract ideals; they are the guardrails that will keep
global health on track when the next crisis arises.
9. Health and
Welfare: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Health without welfare cannot last. Welfare without health is hollow. The
two rise and fall together, shaping not only how long people live but how well
they live. Ethiopia and Brazil demonstrate that investing in health is never
just about medicine; it is about dignity, productivity, and resilience.
·
Ethiopia’s Community Programs
In Ethiopia, the Health Extension
Program has significantly improved access to care, particularly in rural
villages where hospitals are often far away and resources are scarce. The
secret is not high-tech machinery; it is people. Community health workers,
often locals themselves, provide basic treatment, maternal care, and health
education (Lee et al., 2023). Their presence has saved lives and improved
maternal and child health, while also strengthening social cohesion. When neighbours
view health as a shared responsibility, welfare improves as well. Investments
in health become investments in stronger, more resilient communities.
·
Brazil’s Unified Health System (SUS)
Brazil took a significant step
forward, declaring health a fundamental right through its Unified Health
System, SUS. That declaration was not just symbolic; it provided millions of
people with access to care regardless of their income (Paim et al., 2011). By
making health a public good, Brazil not only reduced disparities but also
boosted workforce participation. A healthier population meant higher
productivity and less poverty. The lesson is simple: when health is protected,
welfare follows.
·
When Health Is Separated from Welfare
The divide between health and welfare
cuts both ways. Where welfare protections are weak, health outcomes suffer.
Without unemployment insurance or subsidies, chronic illness quickly drains
household income, trapping families in cycles of poverty and poor health
(Veríssimo & Silva, 2023).
on the other hand, welfare systems
without robust health services leave people equally vulnerable. Cash benefits
matter little if someone cannot get medicine or treatment. Without integrated
care, welfare alone cannot deliver social mobility or lasting independence
(Cruz et al., 2022).
·
Building Integrated Systems
The way forward is clear: health and
welfare policies must be woven together. Countries that earmark health tax
revenues for social programs show how fiscal tools can support both sides of
the coin (Onwujekwe et al., 2023). Integrated strategies, where healthcare
access reduces vulnerability and welfare support cushions financial shocks, create
stronger safety nets and more resilient societies.
The evidence is overwhelming. Ethiopia’s local health workers and
Brazil’s SUS both prove that when health and welfare reinforce one another,
societies thrive. The challenge for policymakers is to stop treating them as
separate silos. Health builds welfare. Welfare sustains health. Together, they
form the foundation of equity and dignity, and without both, no society can
truly flourish.
10. Conclusion: From
Lessons to Action
The pandemic left scars. However, scars are not just wounds; they are a
testament to the fact that survival was possible. They remind us of what we
endured, but also of what we are capable of building if we learn from our past
experiences.
Resilient, inclusive health systems cannot be built by copying and
pasting someone else’s model. They come from sharing lessons across borders,
daring to innovate, and refusing, always, to leave people behind. The real test
is not in how many hospitals we build, but in whether citizens trust those
hospitals enough to walk through their doors. That trust is earned when every
person, rich or poor, disabled or not, living in a crowded city or a remote
village, can say with confidence: “This system is mine, and it will not fail
me.”
·
Collaboration and Equity
Global cooperation is no longer
optional. The EU’s joint vaccine procurement demonstrated how solidarity can
prevent destructive competition (O’Hara et al., 2024). Ethiopia’s community
programs and Brazil’s SUS have demonstrated that when equity—across gender,
disability, and poverty—is built into policy from the outset, health systems
are both fairer and stronger.
·
Financing That Works
Money matters, but how it is raised
and spent matters even more. Mexico’s soda tax showed that fiscal tools can
change unhealthy behaviour while funding essential services (Humphreys et al.,
2023). Blending taxes, insurance, and carefully designed PPPs can provide
stability, but only if transparency and accountability are baked into the
system.
·
Building Trust
Trust does not appear out of thin air;
it is earned. Public dashboards, open spending reports, and community oversight
build confidence that promises are being kept. When people feel their voices
shape the system, they are more willing to participate, comply, and support
reforms.
·
Turning Lessons Into Action
The scars of COVID-19 do not have to
remain symbols of loss. They can serve as reminders of our collective
commitment to build systems that are resilient, inclusive, and just. This
requires more than slogans; it demands action: collaboration across borders,
financing that prioritises fairness, policies that embed equity, and a
relentless focus on trust.
If we succeed, health and welfare will no longer be treated as separate
agendas but as two sides of the same coin. Moreover, that coin will be the
currency of a society that is not only healthier but also more cohesive, more
just, and more prepared for whatever comes next.
The next crisis will not wait. Whether
the world stumbles again or rises stronger depends on one choice: do we guard
our own borders, or do we commit to health and welfare without them? The answer
will decide not only how we survive but how we live.
References :
Acton, R., Brimblecombe, J., Ferguson, M., & Chatfield, M. (2020).
Effect of taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages: A systematic review. Public
Health Nutrition, 23(7), 1226–1244.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019003350
Adekunle, B., Olayemi, O., & Mensah, J. (2023). Transparency, Accountability,
and Public Trust in Health Systems. Health Policy and Planning, 38(5),
455–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czad045
Alikhani, S., & Damari, B. (2016). Private Finance Initiatives in the
United Kingdom: Implications for Health Systems. Iranian Journal of Public
Health, 45(5), 637–645.
Atim, C., Eregie, A., & Okonkwo, O. (2021). Community-Based Health
Insurance and Access to Healthcare in Africa. Health Economics, Policy and
Law, 16(3), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133120000216
Badu, E., Opoku, M. P., Appiah, S. C. Y., & Agyei-Okyere, E. (2015).
The role of health professionals in disability inclusion. Disability, CBR
and Inclusive Development, 26(4), 153–168.
https://doi.org/10.5463/DCID.v26i4.449
Barreto, M. L., Rasella, D., Machado, D. B., Aquino, R., Lima, D., & Garcia,
L. P. (2014). Monitoring and evaluating progress towards Universal Health
Coverage in Brazil. PLoS Medicine, 11(9), e1001676.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001676
Bhatt, J., Bathija, P., & Jung, K. (2021). Shared accountability in
public–private healthcare partnerships. Journal of Health Management, 23(1),
45–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063420983125
Collie, A., Sheehan, L., Lane, T., Grey, S., & Grant, G. (2019).
Financial Hardship and Disability: Impacts on Healthcare Access BMC Public
Health, 19(1), 1282. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7609-0
Cruz, M. F., Diniz, B., & Silva, A. L. (2022). Welfare without
health: The limitations of cash transfer programs. Social Science &
Medicine, 307, 115186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115186
Csákvári, T., Bíró, A., & Molnár, T. (2023). Evaluating the impact of
food taxes on health outcomes. Health Policy, 127(2), 199–208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.11.004
Donnelly, G. E., Zatz, L. Y., Svirsky, D., John, L. K., & Roberto, C.
A. (2018). Public acceptability of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: Evidence
from Mexico. Health Affairs, 37(7), 1033–1040.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1545
Farr, W., & Cressey, C. (2018). Prevention of disability: The role of
community-based interventions. Global Health Action, 11(1), 1467890.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2018.1467890
Grimm, P. Y., Blanchet, K., & Suresh, K. (2021). Resilient health
systems as complex adaptive systems: A framework for analysis. Health
Systems & Reform, 7(2), e1912947.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2021.1912947
Harris, J. (2014). Ageing, disability, and inclusive healthcare: Lessons
from Japan. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(2), 77–89.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207313518076
Humphreys, D., Garcia, J., & de Vera, R. (2023). Tobacco Sin Taxes
and Health Financing in the Philippines. BMJ Global Health, 8(2),
e010422. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010422
Jeon, H., & Kim, S. (2025). Vaccine diplomacy and production: The
case of India’s Vaccine Maitri. Global Public Health, 20(1), 54–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2024.2345678
Lee, J., Abate, A., & Alemayehu, T. (2023). Community health workers
in Ethiopia: Building resilience through grassroots healthcare. International
Journal for Equity in Health, 22(1), 43.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01843-2
Motamedi, N., Ramos, M., & Villanueva, E. (2021). Governance Challenges
in PPP Hospital Modernisation: Lessons from the Philippines. Health Policy
and Planning, 36(5), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czab043
Nozaki, N., Pillay, Y., & Abdool Karim, S. S. (2021). Diagnostic
laboratory PPPs in South Africa: Bridging gaps in access. The Lancet Global
Health, 9(12), e1670–e1677. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00431-0
Onwujekwe, O., Ezumah, N., & Mbachu, C. (2023). Innovative health
financing and transparency in LMICs. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 18(4),
567–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133122000481
Paim, J., Travassos, C., Almeida, C., Bahia, L., & Macinko, J.
(2011). The Brazilian health system: History, advances, and challenges. The
Lancet, 377(9779), 1778–1797. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60054-8
Repke, L., & Ipsen, C. (2020). Disability inclusion in healthcare:
Participatory approaches for policy design. Disability & Health Journal,
13(2), 100844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100844
Tangcharoensathien, V., Limwattananon, S., & Prakongsai, P. (2014).
Achieving Universal Health Coverage in Thailand: Political will and system
design. Health Policy and Planning, 29(6), 675–684.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czt064
Vogler, S., Paris, V., & Panteli, D. (2021). European joint
procurement of COVID-19 vaccines: Learning from practice. Eurohealth, 27(1),
23–27.
Veríssimo, A., & Silva, R. (2023). Chronic illness, welfare gaps, and
health inequity. International Journal of Social Welfare, 32(3),
215–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12566
No comments:
Post a Comment