Media’s role and health saga

AS long as Papua New Guinea remains a democracy, our leaders exist to serve us, the people – and the media exists to keep the public accurately and responsibly informed.
Our health system is facing tough and complex challenges, in part derived from new pressures, such as aging populations, growing prevalence of chronic illnesses including the procurement and distribution of medical supplies.
Yesterday, the National Doctors Association presented its petition to the Government behind closed door.
The petition concerns issues doctors are not happy about among them the removal of the health secretary and the supplying and procuring of medical drugs.
The association while representing the doctors, also carry the voice of the end users of its services – the patients. The people are watching to see how the meeting went. Mind you, NDA has threatened to go on strike and people will be affected if this happen.
The people have thrown their support behind the doctors and the petition presentation should have been recorded and covered by the media, who have been following this issue for years.
We do not want a generic statement, we have questions to ask also.
Our leaders are notorious for worshiping the media when it speaks well for them – but doing their level best to remove media freedom when it criticises their actions.
World Health reports point out three fundamental objectives of health systems, namely improving the health of the populations they serve, responding to people’s expectations, and providing financial protection against costs due to illness.
PNG’s health care system outlined in the National Health Plan 2011-2020, places an emphasis on the provision of basic care for the country’s poor and rural population.
The implementation of the free healthcare policy is supposed to have been made available right throughout the country more efficiently and effectively. This is not happening
The availability of the healthcare services in the country has been negated by a number of factors including the lack of specialist doctors and equipment, high cost of receiving certain types of healthcare services like tumor operations, poor procurement process and lack of stock and capacity.
When the above factors are apparently affecting the delivery of the healthcare services in the country, it is indeed unrealistic and appalling to divulge into the continuous media rhetoric that the so-called free healthcare policy is working in the country.
For sure it is not working as shown by the common process for almost all healthcare facilities throughout the country to ration medical drugs and aids and to prescribe medications and then turn patients away to private pharmacies.
Much of the work needs to be undertaken to provide policymakers with the evidence they need to promote more value for money in the health sector, while ensuring universal access, equity and raising quality of care.
Health systems need financing and investment to improve their performance.
The criticisms are not leveled at the concept of providing free health services but the consequences of implementing the policy in the context of a poorly functioning health system.
We have learned a lot, though there is more to discover.
And for Public Accounts Committee to take an interest in the medical drug process tells us something is not right.
A lot has been circulating on the health system and its administration and we hope it does not end up under the carpet.
Those responsible for the collapse of the health system must be held accountable for that.