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
'Shameful': 16 Dems Help GOP Pass Israel Security Assistance Support Act
Even if the bill passes the Senate, President Joe Biden has threatened to veto it.
May 16, 2024
Despite U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to veto the Israel Security Assistance Support Act, 16 Democrats in the House of Representatives on Thursday voted alongside 208 Republicans to pass the bill, which will now head to the Senate.
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chair Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) introduced H.R. 8369, which his office claimed "curbs President Biden's misguided efforts to withhold critical security resources appropriated in U.S. law by compelling the delivery of defense weapons to Israel as they fight to protect themselves against radical terrorists."
The House vote was 224-187, with only three GOP members opposing the legislation—Reps. Warren Davidson (Ohio), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), and Thomas Massie (Ky.)—and six Republicans and 13 Democrats not voting.
The Democrats who supported the bill are Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Angie Craig (Minn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Lois Frankel (Fla.), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Frank Pallone (N.J.), Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), David Scott (Ga.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Thomas Suozzi (N.Y.), and Ritchie Torres (N.Y.).
"These are the fringe extremists of the Democratic Party."
"These 16 House Democrats just voted with Republicans to ignore U.S. human rights law and fast-track weapons to Israel," the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project said on social media, listing the lawmakers. "Shameful."
Noting that the bill would cut off funds from the National Security Council as well as the Defense and State departments until withheld weapons were sent to Israel, Justice Democrats declared, "These are the fringe extremists of the Democratic Party."
While generally supporting Israel's seven-month assault of the Gaza Strip—as critics worldwide decry it as genocide—Biden has recently halted the delivery of some weapons and threatened to withhold more from the Middle East ally, which has now killed over 35,272 Palestinians in the Hamas-governed enclave and wounded another 79,205, according to local officials.
The White House said in a statement earlier this week that the Biden administration "strongly opposes H.R. 8369," which "would undermine the president's ability to execute an effective foreign policy" and "could raise serious concerns about infringement on the president's authorities under Article II of the Constitution."
"The bill is a misguided reaction to a deliberate distortion of the administration's approach to Israel. The president has been clear: We will always ensure Israel has what it needs to defend itself. Our commitment to Israel is ironclad," the White House asserted. "The administration will continue to use all funds appropriated for Israel consistent with legal requirements, including in the recent supplemental, rendering this bill unnecessary and unwise."
"Furthermore, this bill, if enacted, could lead to spiraling unintended consequences, prohibiting the United States from adjusting our security assistance posture with respect to Israel in any way, including to address unanticipated emergent needs, even if Israel and the United States agree that military needs have changed and supplies should change accordingly," the White House warned.
The president has faced mounting pressure—including from some Democrats in Congress—to limit or fully cut off U.S. weapons to Israel, as rights groups have documented Israeli forces' use of American arms to commit alleged war crimes.
Despite such evidence, the Biden administration concluded in a report to Congress last week that Israeli government assurances about U.S. weapons use are "credible and reliable so as to allow the provision of defense articles" to continue.
Politicopointed out Thursday that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) signaled the chamber may not even take up the measure, saying that "the president has already said he'd veto it, so it's not going anywhere," while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) pledged that "we will sustain the president's veto, as we have done consistently throughout the 118th Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Jews for Jamaal' and Squad Push Back Against AIPAC Attack on Bowman
"It's our duty to fight back," said Rep. Summer Lee, arguing that no super PAC "should be able to drop millions to usurp the conversation for their agenda."
May 16, 2024
As the leading U.S. pro-Israel lobby's political action committee unleashes a nearly $2 million ad blitz targeting Congressman Jamaal Bowman, Jewish allies of the New York Democrat—who is an outspoken critic of what he and many experts call Israel's genocide in Gaza—on Thursday joined progressive lawmakers in condemning right-wing efforts to defeat pro-Palestine incumbents.
United Democracy Project (UDP), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) super PAC, has booked $1.9 million in television ads to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, according to Wednesday reporting by Sludge's David Moore.
"This new ad spending in New York shows once and for all that my opponent, George Latimer, is bankrolled by a right-wing super PAC that has received over $40 million from Republican megadonors who want to defend Republican insurrectionists, overturn voting rights, and ban abortion nationwide," Bowman said in a statement.
"Democrats across New York deserve better, and will reject these attempts to buy our elections and undermine our democracy," he added.
Jews for Jamaal, a pro-Bowman coalition spearheaded by the group Jews for Racial & Economic Justice Action, said in a statement that "we recognize this media blitz for what it is: a desperate move by powerful interests to silence the district's first Black representative in history."
"UDP is overwhelmingly spending its millions in Democratic primaries, mostly against Black and brown Democratic incumbents who speak out against war and for the human rights of Palestinians," the coalition continued. "This massive amount of spending distorts the political landscape, drowning out the needs and voices of everyday constituents with the interests of a few wealthy donors."
"It undermines the very foundation of our democracy, which must be built on the principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine representation," Jews for Jamaal added.
As more and more Democrats speak out against Israel's assault on Gaza—which according to Palestinian health officials has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 125,000 people—and violent repression by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, AIPAC has lashed out at even the mildest criticism of Israeli government policies and practices, which many experts around the world call genocidal.
Last November, Slate's Alex Sammon reported that UDP was set to spend approximately $100 million in a bid to unseat both pro-Palestine congressional progressives and more moderate Democratic candidates who the powerful lobby group believes don't sufficiently support Israel. Sammon said that Bowman, along with fellow "Squad" members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Summer Lee (D-Pa.) are among UDP's top targets.
Some of those lawmakers also rallied to Bowman's defense on Thursday.
"It's our duty to fight back," Lee said on social media. "As somebody who knows these folks intimately, I can speak to the damage UDP causes not just to the candidates they target and smear, but to the communities attached to us and democracy itself."
The congresswoman—who won her primary last month—continued:
Their campaign against me in 2022 was steeped in dog whistles and disinformation. Their most shameful million-dollar attack against me was just unsubtly implying I was a [former U.S. President Donald] Trump supporter... in mailers where my skin was oddly shadowed or darker. For three weeks, they plastered the airwaves and mailboxes in wall-to-wall attacks that overwhelmed our midsized media market. Cable and broadcast, digital and streaming... even children's programming on YouTube was targeted.
Omar asserted on social media that "a people-powered movement will always be stronger than special interest groups."
"We got your back, Jamaal Bowman," she added.
Bush said that Latimer "is being used as a Trojan Horse for far-right billionaires and anti-abortion extremists."
"But from the Bronx to St. Louis, we won't let them win," she vowed.
Bowman, in turn, posted in support of Bush, whom he pledged to defend against "Republican billionaires... coming for her."
Last month, another coalition—the youth-led Protect Our Power campaign—was launched in support of progressive congressional incumbents under attack by AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups.
"The only thing that beats organized money is organized people," the young organizers said at the time. "Fortunately, that's what we know how to do best."
Keep ReadingShow Less
"Yes, Trump, 'I Am a Hater' of Yours," Omar Responds to Ex-President
"You traffic in hate," the Minnesota Democrat said, pointing to his dozens of felony charges and "history of sexually assaulting women."
May 16, 2024
"Yes, Trump, 'I am a hater' of yours."
That's how U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Thursday responded to former President Donald Trump's attack on her during an on-camera interview with the right-wing Minnesota outlet Alpha News.
Reporter Liz Collin pointed out that the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party just endorsed Omar for reelection and asked Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, whether he thinks she is serving Minnesota's 5th Congressional District well.
"Well she hates Jewish people and she hates Israel, there's no question about that, and I think she does a terrible job," Trump claimed, while noting that she may be popular in some areas. "She's a hater, and she hates at levels... rarely seen before."
Since Omar, a Muslim Somali refugee, was elected to Congress in 2018, she has faced an onslaught of Islamaphobia, racism, and mischaracterizations of her positions and statements from right-wing political leaders and media—particularly her criticism of the Israeli government that is currently waging war on Gaza—which have fueled attacks from the public, including death threats.
Republicans last year voted to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She said at the time: "Is anyone surprised that I am somehow deemed unworthy to speak about American foreign policy? Frankly, it is expected, because when you push power, power pushes back."
In her social media response to Trump on Thursday, Omar pointed to the ex-president's four ongoing criminal cases. He faces a total of 88 felony charges for two federal cases and two state cases—in Georgia and New York. A pair of them stem from Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
"You traffic in hate," she told Trump, "and have a history of sexually assaulting women."
Over two dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including E. Jean Carroll. Last year, a jury in New York City found the former president civilly liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and defaming her after she publicly accused him.
The group Justice Democrats also responded to Trump's attack on Omar Thursday, saying that "there's no greater threat or thorn to Trump and MAGA extremism than the Squad and progressives like Ilhan Omar. The Democratic Party should learn that and listen to them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular