Several factors hinder a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding.
One is the fragmented nature of health market interventions. They are inconveniently scattered all over the
globe, with very little information available to the implementers who may learn from them, the donors and investors who may support them, the research and academic
community who may study them, and the global and
national policymakers who may promote their growth.
Another factor is the disagreement over how to assess
impact. Measures of success for individual models range
from their financial sustainability and their scalability
(or replicability) to evaluations of impact on health outcomes and overall contributions to health system goals.
While many institutions are working toward developing comprehensive evaluation metrics for specific
types of models (social franchise models, demand-side
financing models, technology models, etc.), each group
tends to use different language when it comes to defining and measuring success. Given the range and diversity
of models, a universal standard for measuring impact
may never be feasible or even desirable. But agreeing on
common definitions and frameworks for categories as
well as information-collection standards is an important development that could guide decision makers in
comparing across regions and model typologies and
identifying programs for support.
This type of industry-wide collaboration and targeted
support to funders and national governments would effectively facilitate the study of programs’ successes and
shortcomings and help promote the diffusion of promising solutions. Many health market innovations have
already been in existence for at least a decade—the average time for programs to reach scale—and may be
ripe for a more systematic examination of their business model and their impact.
The global health research agenda is beginning to
focus on such cases. The opportunities for cross-fertilization and learning across national and geographic
boundaries are immense. Equally important are the potential contributions such programs can make to broader
health-systems reform. More coordinated efforts by governments, the private sector and the research community to study and support pro-poor models would help
transform these innovations into a dependable health-care alternative for those who need it most.
For source citAtioNs see:
soCial venTure
Capi Tal by Jason Alcorn
There is profit to be had
in serving the poor. It
sounds cynical, but if
done right, it can im-
prove quality of life and
increase access to criti-
cal services like health
care for underserved
populations. That’s the
model followed by Ignia,
a new private equity
firm in Monterrey, Mex-
ico that specializes in
investing in businesses
that target consumers
at the base of the
economic pyr-
amid.
Since its
founding in 2007
by Michael Chu,
the former president
and CEO of ACCION In-
ternational, a non-profit
microfinance organiza-
tion, and by ACCION’s
former board chairman,
Álvaro Rodríguez Arre-
gui, Ignia has invested
in health, agriculture,
telecommunications,
and housing.
One such investment
is Primedic, a start-up
provider of health care
services with six clinics
in Monterrey, Mexico,
that offers a blueprint
for tapping the country’s $27 billion out-of-pocket health care
market.
Pablo Salazar, an
investment manager
for Ignia, says that the
firm’s investments are
expected to return 30
percent, compounded,
in seven years. Achiev-
ing that kind of return
requires Primedic to
expand quickly. The
company plans to op-
erate 36 clinics and
enroll nearly a half mil-
lion members within
five years in a market
where average monthly
household income is
no more than $3,000,
according to Salazar.
Commitments in the
health sector are less
profitable relative to Ig-
nia’s other investments,
requiring it to operate
at higher volume.
