The Take Heart Ation toolkit with support of the Aspen Foundation. The toolkit has been offered free to use online. It is also completely compatible with mobile and pc browsers for all users.
The Action Toolkit Guide is an accompaniment to the film Take Heart: The Quest to Rid Australasia of Rheumatic Heart Disease, using real stories to deliver important health information about Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD). The trailer is free to view with the renting or purchasing of the film available at a small cost.
This Toolkit is designed to help communities, clinicians, health workers and educators to understand, access and utilise the full suite of resources created for the Take Heart: Australasia project.
RHD is similarly a seriously health and risk factor in South Africa with the same goals for eradication and disease combating.
STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE, FROM LYNN SILVER, MD, MPH, SENIOR ADVISOR, CHRONIC DISEASE AND OBESITY PREVENTION,
The Public Health Institute applauds the sweeping action by voters across the country in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany in California and Boulder, Colorado, who successfully took things into their own hands and passed taxes on sugary drinks, protecting their communities from the ravages of chronic disease and poor health. Voters supported these measures with 54% in Boulder, 62% in San Francisco, 61% in Oakland and 71% in Albany. Boulder’s tax is 2 cents per ounce, the highest in the nation, and the others one cent per ounce. PHI congratulates these cities, their residents, and the broad coalitions that made these successes possible.
Oakland, San Francisco, Albany and Boulder are following in the footsteps of Berkeley, CA, Philadelphia, PA and Mexico in taking on the power of the soda industry to improve the health and well-being of their communities. These measures passed in spite of record-breaking spending by Big Soda of over $20 million dollars, and industry campaigns fueled by lies that falsely depicted the fee as a grocery tax.
The writing is on the wall. Voters will no longer tolerate the devastating impact of sugar sweetened beverages on their loved ones and communities. PHI was proud to join a broad coalition of organizations and individuals from all walks of life from the three Bay Area communities in supporting these measures. Their dedication bore fruit today.
The evidence is clear: soda taxes directly reduce sales of unhealthy beverages while also generating millions of dollars to support prevention and build healthier communities. Research measuring the impact of Berkeley’s tax, approved in 2014, found a 21% decline in sugary drink consumption in low-income communities and a 63% increase in water consumption after the tax, as well as a decline in sales of unhealthy beverages while healthier options increased sales, and there was no increase in overall grocery bills (PHI and UNC) in the first six months.
We look forward to similar impact in the communities that passed a tax today and to seeing more soda tax policies established across California, the nation and the globe. Today’s votes on soda tax were a victory for public health, the health of the Bay Area, Colorado and the will of the people.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights about an opportunity involving the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food will be focusing her next report to the UN General Assembly on the topic of nutrition, and is holding a consultation to gather information and ideas with relevant partners, to inform the report.
This is a great opportunity to push the NCD agenda forward in the new Deca
de of Action on Nutrition based on a human rights approach. Submit written comments by JULY 10 (see concept note) – we welcome and encourage national and regional NCD Alliances to respond and share their national/regional experiences.
Please send your responses to Frederike Jansonius and
please send a copy the NCD Alliance.
Suggested reading NCD Alliance’s recent policy brief on SMART commitments to address NCDs, overweight and obesity.
Please read below for the link to the latest 2016 South African Health Review. Listed below is the chapters with links contained to the digital copy not hosted on this website. Following that is the cover to the review which is the link to the digital download.
- Health Policy and Legislation
Andy Gray, Yousuf Vawda
- Analysing the progress and fault lines of health sector transformation in South Africa
Laetitia Rispel
- Water, sanitation and health: South Africa’s remaining and existing issues
David Hemson
- Diet-related non-communicable diseases in South Africa: Determinants and policy responses
Mark Spires, Peter Delobelle, David Sanders, Thandi Puoane, Philipp Hoelzel, Rina Swart
- The contribution of specialist training programmes to the development of a public health workforce in South Africa
Virginia Zweigenthal, Leslie London, William Pick
- Disabling health: The challenge of incapacity leave and sickness absence management in the public health sector in KwaZulu-Natal Province
Rajen N. Naidoo, Saloshni Naidoo, Sujatha Hariparsad
- Language barriers in health: Lessons from the experiences of trained interpreters working in public sector hospitals i n the Western Cape
Ereshia Benjamin, Leslie Swartz, Linda Hering, Bonginkosi Chiliza
- Bridging the gap between biomedical and traditional health practitioners in South Africa
Mosa Moshabela, Thembelihle Zuma, Bernhard Gaede
- Achieving universal access to sexual and reproductive health services: The potential and pitfalls for contraceptive services in South Africa
Naomi Lince-Deroche, Melanie Pleaner, Jane Harries, Chelsea Morroni, Saiqa Mullick, Cindy Firnhaber, Masangu Mulongo, Pearl Holele, Edina Sinanovic
- Breastfeeding in South Africa: are we making progress?
Lisanne du Plessis, Nazia Peer, Simone Honikman, René English
- MomConnect: an exemplar implementation of the Health Normative Standards Framework in South Africa
Christopher Seebregts, Peter Barron, Gaurang Tanna, Peter Benjamin, Thomas Fogwill
- The contribution of congenital disorders to child mortality in South Africa
Helen L. Malherbe, Colleen Aldous, David Woods, Arnold Christianson
- Integrating mental health into South Africa’s health system: Current status and way forward
Marguerite Schneider, Emily Baron, Erica Breuer, Sumaiyah Docrat, Simone Honikman, Ashraf Kagee, Michael Onah, Sarah Skeen, Katherine Sorsdahl, Mark Tomlinson, Claire van der Westhuizen, Crick Lund
- Sex work and South Africa’s health system: Addressing the needs of the underserved
Andrew Scheibe, Marlise Richter, Jo Vearey
- Trauma, a preventable burden of disease in South Africa: Review of the evidence, with a focus on KwaZulu-Natal
Timothy C. Hardcastle, George Oosthuizen, Damian Clarke, Elizabeth Lutge
- Strengthening the measurement of quality of care
Ronelle Burger, Shivani Ranchod, Laura Rossouw, Anja Smith
- HIV and AIDS financing in South Africa: sustainability and fiscal space
Mark S. Blecher, Gesine Meyer-Rath, Calvin Chiu, Yogan Pillay, Fareed Abdullah, Aparna Kollipara, Jonatan Davén, Michael Borowitz, Nertila Tavanxi
- Towards a transparent pricing system in South Africa: Trends in pharmaceutical logistics fees
Varsha Bangalee, Fatima Suleman
- The development of a National Health Research Observatory in South Africa: Considerations and challenges
Nobelungu J. Mekwa, Ashley Van Niekerk, Edith N. Madela-Mntla, Mohammed Jeenah, Glaudina Loots, Bongani M. Mayosi
- Health and Related Indicators
Candy Day, Andy Gray
Numbers don’t lie, especially if you take a look at the place of NCDs in the draft health budget. The words about NCDs imply commitment to solving a huge health problem. That is superficial though when it comes to NCDs. There a heaps of great sounding words (policies and plans) but a clear lack of money. Especially for screening and treatment. Words, even printed ones, are cheap. Little has changed:
Whilst the Minister in the preamble of the Annual Performance Plan highlights importance of tackling non-communicable diseases (NCDs) there doesn’t appear to be any dramatic shift in budget allocation over the Medium Term. Can the department provide reasons for this?
Issues for consideration Parliament Research Unit. Vote15: Health Budget 2014/15 p.6
Health is allocated less than 5% of the proposed national budget (Figure 1). Defense get more yet SA loses more people to NCDs each day than in armed conflicts. Where are our national priorities?
Figure 1:
Looking at the details of the health budget
The smallest by far is Programme 4 for Primary Health Care (PHC) services (R 225 -million)
Most People Living With NCDs get care at primary health care (PHC) clinics and this appears to be the reasoning why NCDs are placed within Prog 4 . People living with HIV/AIDS
Our information comes from the draft Annual Performance Plan (APP) and its accompanying budget. – see pages 61-63. Click here to download the draft APP 2015/2016-2017/8
Fast facts stacking up Programme 4 vs other NDoH Programmes 2015/16
Smallest programme
budget by far |
See Figure 2 |
| 1st place people costs |
Programme 4 cost of PEOPLE EMPLOYED R186.2 million = ↓ money available for implementation |
2nd largest # people
employed |
458 by only 10 people short of no 1 placed Programme 1 (p. 27) |
| Only programme to increase personnel costs |
Leaving less to spend on implementing programmes/ plans |
3 NCDs issues related to HIV/AIDS and Maternal Child health appear in Prog 3 budget (cancer cervix, breast cancer policy, immunizations.) Cancer of the prostate does not warrant a mention in the APP.
The key to the APP is words not allocation of funds. Again NCDs screening and treatment is left high and dry.
Fast facts about NCDs Prog 4 budget
Where is the money for implementation of the NCDs plan in this budget?
| 89.37% for people working on projects – personnel, contractors and consultants |
0 for screening of target of 8 million people for high BP and blood glucose OR
NCDs Commission/ Health Commission (more next week on this) |
1.3 % NGOs or non-profits (< R 3-million) > 50% goes to 2 of 6 NGOs
National Council Against Smoking & SA National Council for the Blind. |
NCDs prevention and treatment cross cuts all Programmes especially at the PHC level. So we need to look at inside other programmes. However, without exception there is no separate financial allocation for stated NCDs targets like for example breast cancer policy development and cancer of the cervix screening in Programme 3 (HIV/AIDS & TB.) Innovations like “ideal clinics” which are supposed to include NCDs take place without consulting NCDs civil society organisations.
Examples from Programme 2: NHI
- Drug procurement and stock out management (all drugs including ARVs)
- National Cancer Registry (words no money)
Programme 3: HIV/AIDS & TB
- Cervical cancer screening
- Breast cancer policy (more words no money)
- Vaccinations against hepatitis & human papilloma virus
- Obesity policy (more words no money)
Watchdogs must bark. An NCDs advocacy series. This is the first in a series on NCDs in policy documents.
