Selective primary health care' and other recent vertical health strategies have been justified on the grounds that the broad primary health care (PHC) approach cannot be afforded by developing countries in the present constrained economic circumstances. This judgement is too sweeping. A simulated case example is presented, starting with baseline health expenditure data that are representative of the situation in many developing countries. It is assumed that real economic growth occurs and that government funding of health care is allowed to grow in parallel. Two annual growth rates are considered: 2 and 5 per cent. Two restrictive conditions are applied: none of the main health services is subjected to absolute cuts; and, additional funds from existing or new sources of finance are not considered. It is shown that, even with slow growth rates, substantial increases in the funding of priority (rural and PHC) services can be achieved if the growth in expenditures of lower-priority services is curtailed. Also, savings from improved health service efficiency can be channelled to priority services.
The message is that the PHC approach is viable even with slow economic growth.
What is required is the lechnical capacity to identify and plan resource flows in the health sector, and the political will to effect resource allocations according to PHC priorities. A strategic policy like PHC should not be 'adjusted' out of effective existence because of reversible economic problems. Rather, actions should be taken to reverse the adverse economic environment. International health-related agencies should continue to support countries to develop national health systems based on PHC, and should campaign for reforms in the world economy to create at least the minimum economic conditions necessary for PHC implementation.