June, 26 2023, 01:33pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone,+1 617 482 1211 (Toll-free 1-800-77-OXFAM),Email,info@oxfamamerica.org
Poor people being bypassed or bankrupted as rich countries pour development billions into private healthcare
Investments of taxpayers’ money into dodgy deals, profiteering and exploitation, health scandals and human rights abuses —all with little or no accountability. This includes private hospitals imprisoning patients and retaining deceased relatives until bills are paid.
Patients living in poverty in the Global South are being bankrupted by private healthcare corporations backed by multi-million-dollar investments from development finance institutions (DFIs) run by the UK, French, German and other rich country governments.
DFIs like the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) invest public funds via the private sector to help foster economic development in the Global South and tackle poverty.
However, today, Oxfam publishes two investigations on DFI funding into private hospital chains and other for-profit healthcare corporations operating in low- and middle-income countries and finds cases of them:
- Extorting and imprisoning patients including newborn babies, even retaining dead bodies, for the non-payment of bills;
- Profiteering, including during the pandemic, and routinely over-charging patients into bankruptcy and poverty;
- Denying treatment to those who can’t afford it —even in emergencies— and pricing services and medicines wildly out of reach of most people in local communities;
- Being involved in tax tricks, price rigging, and medical negligence leading to deaths;
- Failing to prevent human rights abuses, including organ trafficking by staff and exploitative practices, for example by pressuring patients to have unnecessary and expensive medical procedures.
“For decades, rich countries have been wedded to a theory that public funds can underwrite the private sector in order to help low- and middle-income countries develop their healthcare sectors,” said Oxfam International’s Health Policy Lead Anna Marriott. “This has proved to be an evidence-free, rich country bankers’ guide to global healthcare —a free-for-all of private greed over public good— where the big winners are the super-rich investors and owners of healthcare corporations, and the losers being the masses facing rising poverty, sickness, discrimination and human rights abuses.”
Oxfam investigated investments by European DFIs into the booming private healthcare sectors of India, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and other Global South countries. It finds:
- 358 health investments between 2010 and 2022, more than half (56 percent) of which went into private healthcare corporations operating in low- and middle-income countries;
- At least $2.4 billion channeled into health corporations that can be tracked, but Oxfam found at least another 269 health investments for which the value is not disclosed;
- Most of these health investments (81 percent) are being “lost from sight” —sub-invested out via a network of financial intermediaries, 80 percent of them located in tax havens like Mauritius, Jersey and the Cayman Islands;
- Little to no public accountability of these investments and no evidence as to whether they are improving access to healthcare for people living in poverty, especially women and girls;
- Extremes of private hospital chains offering 5-star hotel treatment for politicians, sports stars and celebrities at elite prices, through to people being extorted, exploited or excluded depending on their ability to pay.
“Half the world’s population can’t get essential healthcare. Every second, sixty people are plunged into poverty by medical bills. Donor countries and development banks have long promised that they can drive down healthcare costs for people living in poverty by investing taxpayers’ money into the private sector. Instead, costs are rocketing up and causing harm,” Marriott said.
In India, where the private healthcare sector is now worth $236 billion and rising rapidly, the IFC has directly invested over half a billion dollars into some of the country’s largest corporate hospital chains, with more made indirectly via private equity, owned by some of the richest billionaires in India. Oxfam found:
- The IFC has not published a single evaluation of its health projects in India since these started over 25 years ago;
- Multiple complaints upheld by Indian health regulators including cases of these hospitals overcharging, denying healthcare, rigging prices, evading taxes, and refusing to treat patients living in poverty for free despite this being a condition of receiving government land for free;
- Of 144 hospitals funded, only one is located in a rural area, and only 20 are located in the ten states ranked lowest in India’s Annual Health Index;
- IFC hospital investments focus more on company expansion and “value creation for investees” than on patients’ rights or improving access for those more in need.
The reports cite profit margins of up to 1,737 percent on drugs, consumables and diagnostics in four big hospital complexes in the Delhi-National Capital Region.
The Maputo Private Hospital in Mozambique, backed by the IFC during the pandemic, reportedly charged COVID-19 patients a $6,000 deposit for oxygen and $10,000 for a ventilator. Similarly, in Uganda, the Nakasero Hospital reportedly charged $1,900 per day for a COVID-19 bed in intensive care, while the TMR Hospital charged $116,000 for one patient who died from the virus. Nakasero Hospital is funded by France, the EU and the IFC while TMR Hospital is supported by the UK and France.
The Sírio-Libanês Hospital in Brazil, which has DFI investments from both Germany’s DEG and France’s Proparco, treats primarily a rich elite including Latin American celebrities and presidents. It boasts 500 security cameras, 250 electronic access controllers, 250 proximity sensors, 100 guards, and doctors who are trained to deal with the paparazzi.
While the number of mothers dying in pregnancy and childbirth is rising around the world, Oxfam found that DFI funded hospitals are far out of reach for those most needing life-saving healthcare. The average cost of an uncomplicated childbirth in these private hospitals is more than a year’s income for an average earner in the bottom 40 percent of the population, while the cost of a caesarean birth is more than two years’ income.
In Nigeria, nine in ten of the poorest women give birth with no midwife or skilled birth attendant. Oxfam tracked development funds from the EIB, Germany, France and the IFC to the high-end private Lagoon Hospitals in Lagos, where the most basic maternity package costs more than nine years’ income for the poorest 10 percent of Nigerians.
Spent wisely, aid and other forms of government spending are essential in order to save lives and drive development. Ethiopia successfully used aid to achieve most of the health-related Millenium Development Goals by 2015, including the reduction of maternal deaths by more than 70 percent. In lower-income countries doing the most to stop women dying in childbirth, 90 percent of their healthcare comes from the public sector. COVID-19 has demonstrated how health security is dependent on delivering healthcare for all goals everywhere as soon as possible.
“It is more urgent than ever that governments stop this dangerous diversion of public funds to private healthcare and instead deliver on aid and other public funding promises in order to strengthen public healthcare systems that can deliver for everybody. Global South governments should also step up and be more assertive in directing foreign public investments into better health outcomes for their people,” Marriott said.
Oxfam is calling for a stop to all future direct and indirect DFI funding to private healthcare and an urgent, independent investigation into all current and historical investments.Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Signals It Will Uphold 'State-Sanctioned Discrimination' in Transgender Care Case
"We the people means all the people," said the ACLU. "There is no 'transgender' exception to the U.S. Constitution."
Dec 04, 2024
Attorneys who argued against Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming healthcare at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed hope that the court's nine justices will take "the opportunity to affirm the essential freedom and equality of all people before the law," while reports indicated that the right-wing majority is inclined to uphold the ban.
"Every day this law inflicts further pain, injustice, and discrimination on families in Tennessee and prevents them from receiving the medical care they need," said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, which represented three families and a physician. "We ask the Supreme Court to commit to upholding the promises of the U.S. Constitution for all people by putting an end to Tennessee's state-sanctioned discrimination against trans youth and their families."
The law, S.B. 1, which was passed in March 2023, bars medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medications, other hormonal treatment, and surgical procedures to transgender minors and youths with gender dysphoria.
The Supreme Court case, United States v. Skrmetti, applies only to the ban on puberty blockers and hormonal therapy for minors; a lower court found the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the surgery ban.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and a law firm were joined by the Biden administration in arguing that Tennessee allows doctors to prescribe puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments for youths with congenital defects, early puberty, diseases, or physical injuries.
As such, said the plaintiffs, Tennessee's ban for transgender and nonbinary youths violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives."
The court's three liberal justices—Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all indicated they believed Tennessee has tried to classify people according to sex or gender with the law.
"One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity," said Kagan. "Sounds to me like, 'We want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,' and that's an important purpose behind the law."
Matthew Rice, the lawyer representing Tennessee in the case, claimed the state simply wants to prevent "regret" among minors, and the court's six conservative justices signaled they were inclined to allow Tennessee to ban the treatments—which are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other top medical associations.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the nine justices should not overrule the decision made by lawmakers representing Tennessee residents, considering there is debate over the issue, and pointed to changes some European countries have made to their gender-affirming care protocols for minors.
Representing the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that there has been debate about gender-affirming care in the U.S. and abroad, but pointed out that countries including the U.K. and Sweden have not outright banned treatment.
"I think that's because of the recognition that this care can provide critical, sometimes lifesaving benefits for individuals with severe gender dysphoria," she said.
Following the arguments, plaintiff Brian Williams, who has a 16-year-old daughter in need of gender-affirming care, addressed supporters who had assembled outside the Supreme Court.
"Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care is an active threat to the future my daughter deserves," said Williams. "It infringes not only on her freedom to be herself but on our family's love for her. We are not expecting everyone to understand everything about our family or the needs of transgender young people like our daughter. What we are asking for is for her freedom to be herself without fear. We are asking for her to be able to access the care she needs and enter adulthood knowing nothing is holding her back because of who she is."
Sotomayor said there is "very clear" evidence "that there are some children who actually need this treatment."
A 2022 study led by researchers at the University of Washington found that transgender and nonbinary youths aged 13-20 were 60% less likely to experience moderate or severe depression and 73% less likely to be suicidal after receiving gender-affirming care.
Prelogar asked the justices to "think about the real-world consequences of laws like S.B. 1," highlighting the case of a plaintiff identified as Ryan Roe.
Roe had such severe gender dysphoria that "he was throwing up before school every day," said Prelogar. "He thought about going mute because his voice caused him so much distress. And Ryan has told the courts that getting these medications after a careful consultation process with his doctors and his parents, has saved his life."
"But Tennessee has come in and categorically cut off access to Ryan's care," she added. "This law harms Ryan's health and the health of all other transgender adolescents for whom these medications are a necessity."
Tennessee is home to about 3,100 transgender teenagers, and about 110,000 transgender youths between the ages of 13-17 live in the 24 states where gender-affirming care is restricted.
More than 20 states have laws that could be impacted by the court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives," said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "But I also know that every out trans person has embraced the unknown in the name of living free from shame or the limits of other people's expectations."
"My heart aches for the parents who spent years watching their children in distress and eventually found relief in the medical care that Tennessee now overrides their judgment to ban," said Strangio. "Whatever happens today, tomorrow, and in the months and years to come, I trust that we will come together to fight for the realized promise of our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all."
A ruling in the case is expected in June.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Small Town Sues Utility for Climate Deception
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change," said the mayor of Carrboro, North Carolina.
Dec 04, 2024
The town of Carrboro, North Carolina filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the utility company Duke Energy of carrying out a "knowing deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis."
The municipality—which is near Chapel Hill and is after compensation for damages it has suffered or will suffer as a result of the alleged deception campaign—is the first town in the United States to challenge an electric utility for public deception about the dangers of fossil fuels and seek damages for the harms those emissions have created, according to the town's mayor, Barbara Foushee.
The case was filed in North Carolina Superior Court and argues that Duke Energy has engaged in a "greenwashing" campaign to convince the public it sought to address the climate emergency.
"In reliance upon these misrepresentations, the public has continued to conduct business with Duke under the mistaken belief that the company is committed to renewable energy," according to the filing.
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change. The climate crisis continues to burden our community and cost residents their hard-earned tax dollars," said Foushee, according to a press release.
Mayor Pro Tem Danny Nowell added that "it's time for us to hold Duke Energy accountable for decades of deception, padding executives' pockets while towns like ours worked to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. This suit will allow the Town of Carrboro to invest new resources into building a stronger, more climate-resilient community, using the damages justly due to our residents to reimagine the ways we prepare for our climate reality."
According to the lawsuit, Carrboro will be forced to spend millions of dollars either repairing or shoring up public infrastructure as a result of more frequent and devastating storms, which scientists agree are caused by climate change.
The complaint comes not long after the release of a report, Duke Energy Knew: Documenting the Utility’s Early Knowledge and Ongoing Deception About Climate Change, from the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group. According to the report, Duke Energy well understood the risks posed by burning fossil fuels as far back as the 1960s, but chose to take part in promoting disinformation about climate science. In more recent years, the utility continued to pursue fossil fuels while blocking renewable energy development, according to the report's authors. Much of this research is referenced in the lawsuit.
As one example of its "deception," the lawsuit points to Duke Energy's participation in the the Global Climate Coalition, an entity created with the intent of opposing action to curb the climate crisis.
Duke Energy was the third largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in 2021, according to a breakdown from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which ranked U.S. companies in terms of their CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.
More than 20 states, tribes, cities, and counties have brought similar climate deception lawsuits. Maine, for example, recently became the ninth state to sue a major oil and gas company for deceiving the public about its products' role in the climate crisis.
"We’ll soon have a climate denier-in-chief in the White House, but Carrboro is a shining light in this darkness, taking on one of the country's largest polluters and climate deceivers," Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release. The Center for Biological Diversity is advising on the case.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Sound Alarm Over Trump Plot to Install Nominees Without Senate Approval
"If you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
Dec 04, 2024
Dozens of civil rights and pro-democracy organizations teamed up Wednesday to express opposition to President-elect Donald Trump's push to use recess appointments to evade the Senate confirmation process for his political nominees, many of which have
glaring conflicts of interest.
The 70 groups—including People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and the NAACP—sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that Senate confirmation procedures provide "crucial data" that helps lawmakers and the public "evaluate nominees' fitness for the important positions to which they are nominated."
"The framers of the Constitution included the requirement of Senate 'Advice and Consent' for high-ranking officers for a reason: The requirement can protect our freedom, just as the Bill of Rights does, by providing an indispensable check on presidential power," reads the new letter. "None of that would happen with recess appointments. The American people would be kept in the dark."
Since his victory in last month's election, Trump has publicly expressed his desire to bypass the often time-consuming Senate confirmation process via recess appointments, which are allowed under the Constitution and have been used in the past by presidents of both parties. The need for Senate confirmation is already proving to be a significant obstacle for the incoming administration: Trump's first attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid seemingly insurmountable Senate opposition, and Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth appears to be on the ropes.
"Giving in to the president-elect's demand for recess appointments under the current circumstances would dramatically depart from how important positions have always been filled at the start of an administration," the groups wrote in their letter. "The confirmation process gathers important information that helps ensure that nominees who will be dangerous or ineffective for the American people are not confirmed and given great power, and that those who are confirmed meet at least a minimum standard of acceptability."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices, and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Scholars argue recess appointments were intended as a way for presidents to appoint officials to key posts under unusual circumstances, not as an exploit for presidents whose nominees run up against significant opposition.
The Senate could prevent recess appointments by refusing to officially go on recess and making use of pro forma sessions, but incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that "we have to have all the options on the table" to push through Trump's nominees.
"We are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda," Thune said last month.
Trump has also previously threatened to invoke a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that he claims would allow him to force both chambers of Congress to adjourn, paving the way for recess appointments.
Conservative scholar Edward Whelan, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, denounced that proposed route as a "cockamamie scheme" that would mean "eviscerating the Senate's advice-and-consent role."
Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, said in a statement Wednesday that "if you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices," said Myrick, "and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular