The promise and limits of private medicine: health policy dilemmas in Nigeria

Abstract

Developments in health are easily among the best known human development indicators. Comparisons of life expectancy, infant mortality, access to safe water and similar data indicate the positions of individual countries. The political and economic processes which these indices reflect, or which inform the nature of health policy, are often not as clear or visible. These structural factors are either frequently ignored or mentioned only in passing, as illustrated in a recent paper published in this journal on the private medical enterprise in Nigeria (Ogunbekun et al. 1999). According to the authors, the generally low quality of public health services and high user fees have combined to make private medicine the 'unavoidable choice' of Nigerians. They identify benefits of private medicine as higher technical efficiency and contributing to fill the gap created by inadequate public sector services and to medical training. This paper argues that these claims are exaggerated, and that the authors seem to ignore Nigeria's political and economic processes, the health seeking behaviour of Nigerians, as well as the prevailing causes of morbidity and mortality. It is suggested that whereas the contributions of private medicine are significant, there are also several limitations, some of which originate from its for-profit raison d'être. The ultimate aim of health development must include improved access to services and better health status for the majority of the people. Without any form of public supported programme of payments in Nigeria, these objectives are circumscribed, especially with high fees in the private system. It is concluded that while private medicine will continue to be available for those who can afford it, it is unlikely to provide solutions to Nigeria's morbidity and mortality problems, particularly in relation to epidemics such as the growing burden of HIV/AIDS.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.