Robert Riviello

The Millennium Development Goals have ended and the Sustainable Development Goals have begun, marking a shift in the global health landscape. The frame of reference has changed from a focus on 8 development priorities to an expansive set of 17 interrelated goals intended to improve the well-being of all people. In this time of change, several groups, including the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, have brought a critical problem to the fore: 5 billion people lack access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. The magnitude of this problem and the world's new focus on strengthening health systems mandate reimagined roles for and renewed commitments from high income country actors in global surgery. To discuss the way forward, on 6 May 2015, the Commission held its North American launch event in Boston, Massachusetts. Panels of experts outlined the current state of knowledge and agreed on the roles of surgical colleges and academic medical centres; trainees and training programmes; academia; global health funders; the biomedical devices industry, and news media and advocacy organisations in building sustainable, resilient surgical systems. This paper summarises these discussions and serves as a consensus statement providing practical advice to these groups. It traces a common policy agenda between major actors and provides a roadmap for maximising benefit to surgical patients worldwide. To close the access gap by 2030, individuals and organisations must work collectively, interprofessionally and globally. High income country actors must abandon colonial narratives and work alongside low and middle income country partners to build the surgical systems of the future.

The global disparities in both surgical disease burden and access to delivery of surgical care are gaining prominence in the medical literature and media. Concurrently, there is an unprecedented groundswell in idealism and interest in global health among North American medical students and trainees in anesthesia and surgical disciplines. Many academic medical centers (AMCs) are seeking to respond by creating partnerships with teaching hospitals overseas. In this article we describe six such partnerships, as follows: (1) University of California San Francisco (UCSF) with the Bellagio Essential Surgery Group; (2) USCF with Makerere University, Uganda; (3) Vanderbilt with Baptist Medical Center, Ogbomoso, Nigeria; (4) Vanderbilt with Kijabe Hospital, Kenya; (5) University of Toronto, Hospital for Sick Children with the Ministry of Health in Botswana; and (6) Harvard (Brigham and Women's Hospital and Children's Hospital Boston) with Partners in Health in Haiti and Rwanda. Reflection on these experiences offers valuable lessons, and we make recommendations of critical components leading to success. These include the importance of relationships, emphasis on mutual learning, the need for "champions," affirming that local training needs to supersede expatriate training needs, the value of collaboration in research, adapting the mission to locally expressed needs, the need for a multidisciplinary approach, and the need to measure outcomes. We conclude that this is an era of cautious optimism and that AMCs have a critical opportunity to both shape future leaders in global surgery and address the current global disparities.

urrently in sub-Saharan Africa, most patients with surgical problems that are routinely treatable in highincome countries never reach a health facility, or are treated at a facility with inadequate human or physical resources. These conditions lead to premature death or physical disability with a significant economic burden. Meanwhile, the last decade has seen the emergence of numerous "neglected tropical disease" (NTD) initiatives in global public health. As surgeons working with clinicians in sub-Saharan Africa, the momentum for NTDs causes us to ask: Shouldn't surgical conditions also be considered "neglected"?

BACKGROUND: Approximately 150 million people suffer from financial catastrophe annually because of out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPEs) on health. Although the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) of Ghana was designed to promote universal health coverage, OOPEs as a proportion of total health expenditures remains elevated at 26%, exceeding the WHO's recommendations of less than 15-20%. To determine whether enrollment in the NHIS reduces the likelihood of OOPEs and catastrophic health expenditures (CHEs) in Ghana, we undertook a systematic review of the published literature. METHODS: We searched for quantitative articles published in English between January 1, 2003 and August 22, 2017 in PubMed, Google Scholar, Economic Literature, Global Health, PAIS International, and African Index Medicus. Two independent authors (J.S.O. & S.E.) reviewed the articles for inclusion, extracted the data, and conducted a quality assessment of the studies. We accepted the World Health Organization definition of catastrophic health expenditures which is out of pocket payments for health care which exceeds 20% of annual house hold income, 10% of household expenditures, or 40% of subsistence expenditures (total household expenditures net food expenditures). RESULTS: Of the 1094 articles initially identified, 7 were eligible for inclusion. These were cross-sectional household studies published between 2008 and 2016 in Ghana. They demonstrated that the uninsured paid 1.4 to 10 times more in out-of-pocket payments (OOPs) and were more likely to incur CHEs than the insured. Yet, 6 to 18% of insured households made catastrophic payments for healthcare and all studies reported insured members making OOPs for medicines. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that the national health insurance scheme of Ghana over the last 14 years has made some impact on reducing OOPEs, and yet healthcare costs remain catastrophic for a large proportion of insured households in Ghana. Future studies need to explore reasons for the persistence of OOPs for medicines and services that are covered under the scheme.