[🇧🇩] Healthcare Industry in Bangladesh

[🇧🇩] Healthcare Industry in Bangladesh
68
3K
More threads by Saif

G Bangladesh Defense

Urban healthcare to turn a corner

FE
Published :
Apr 12, 2026 00:14
Updated :
Apr 12, 2026 00:14

1775953247778.webp


That health authorities have finally proposed building 170 city health centres across Dhaka and Chattogram is a piece of welcome news, though it speaks of how badly the urban poor have been let down for decades. The Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) under a project estimated at Tk 11.57 billion and largely financed by the World Bank plans to establish these centres across Dhaka North, Dhaka South and Chattogram City Corporation over the next three years, with each ward receiving at least one primary healthcare facility operating in two shifts. The proposal, awaiting ECNEC approval after missing the last meeting's formal agenda, comes against a backdrop that is frankly embarrassing. Nearly 40 per cent of the country's population now lives in urban areas, up from 27 per cent in 2011, and Dhaka alone is projected to hold 28 million people by 2030. Yet across all urban areas under the health ministry, only 35 government dispensaries exist, 17 of them in Dhaka and nine in Chattogram and most of them are shut down by midday. The state has been, in effect, running a healthcare system designed to be left unused.

Most of Dhaka's working poor do not have the freedom to visit a government dispensary before noon, which is the only time one is open. A garment worker or a day labourer cannot afford to visit a facility at a fixed hour but a centre if it remains open for two shifts gives them the flexibility to choose when they can visit. The same is true for a woman in a conservative household who depends on a working husband to accompany her. Similar is the case of an elderly person who may have no one at home once family members leave for work. The predictable result is that they crowd into private clinics and spend money they cannot afford, self-medicate through pharmacies or simply suffer through illness until the condition worsens. The two-shift model built into the proposal addresses this directly, and the placement of at least one centre in every ward further reduces the problem of distance. There is also the matter of cost. Millions of people pushed into expensive private care are an economic drain on households. The project's own economic analysis puts the net present value of the investment at 316 million dollars, with a nine per cent internal rate of return. Primary healthcare is thus an economic imperative as much as a social one.

What also separates this proposal from previous efforts is the ambition of its design. Urban healthcare in Bangladesh has historically been a tangle of jurisdictions, with responsibilities fragmented across institutions that coordinate poorly and leave patients without any coherent pathway from a primary consultation to specialist care. The network linking the new centres with referral facilities attempts to address this tangle. The Planning Commission has rightly insisted on a memorandum of understanding with the Local Government Division before project approval, which makes coordination a formal requirement from the outset.

What remains is the question of execution. ECNEC approval should come at the next meeting without the proposal being tabled or deferred again, and implementation timelines must be treated as a firm commitment rather than a tentative projection. The monitoring mechanism promised within the project needs to be credible, independent and open to public scrutiny, with regular reporting that allows performance to be judged in real time. More importantly, those responsible for implementation cannot be allowed to bypass findings about understaffing, medicine shortages or absenteeism without consequence, as these are failures that have undone so many public facilities in this country before.​
 

Healthcare needs more than grand plans

FE

Published :
Apr 20, 2026 00:31
Updated :
Apr 20, 2026 00:31

1776642314116.webp


Some recent initiatives by the incumbent government, in line with its vision for the future, suggest that revitalising the country's ailing health sector is a top priority. An initiative has been taken to set up 170 city health centres across Dhaka and Chattogram to ensure affordable healthcare in urban areas. At the same time, the prime minister announced on Saturday that health facilities would be upgraded at the upazila level so that people do not have to travel to cities for specialised treatment. He said that the government aims to build an accessible, affordable, effective and humane healthcare system, and urged physicians working at the grassroots level to lend their support to this endeavour.

A recent report published in this newspaper further indicates that an ambitious plan is underway to roll out a comprehensive digital health system by integrating a wide range of eHealth services, including mobile health (mHealth), while expanding up to emerging areas such as big data analytics, genomics and artificial intelligence. The proposed system is expected to bring more than 114 existing digital health initiatives under a unified framework, alongside the deployment of new software and hardware, to deliver a five-tier structure of health, nutrition and population services, from community-level facilities to tertiary care. Overall, to strengthen the health sector, the Prime Minister said that budgetary allocation for this vital sector would be increased to 5.0 per cent of GDP.

The government's lofty vision for this sector, however, comes at a time when the country is facing a deadly measles outbreak that has killed nearly 200 children so far. Thousands of children are still battling with this deadly disease in hospitals, with reports of new infections and a rising death toll emerging by the day. Attributing the outbreak to the failure of the past two governments to vaccinate children, the prime minister rightly said that not ensuring measles vaccination for children was an "unforgivable crime". He also informed that the current government has already launched an emergency vaccination campaign to contain the outbreak. At the same time, the authorities should probe any lapses in measles vaccination in recent years, and those responsible must be held to account.

Overall, when the government has given a long list of what it has done and is going to do, the ground reality in the health sector is not very reassuring and reports coming from time to time indicate that there is a long way to go before the health sector assumes a truly pro-people character. For example, the premier exhorted physicians posted in rural areas to support the government's effort to bring the rural populace under modern healthcare service. But it must be remembered that such exhortations often fall on deaf ears, and the rural people do not get proper healthcare on many occasions due to negligence on the part of physicians. Too often the media reports that rural health centres are running without a physician. Moreover, important medical equipment often lies completely inoperative for a lack of timely repair or replacement. Thus, doctors' absenteeism and inoperative medical equipment often push patients to private clinics only to buy medical services at a high cost. The government, therefore, while thinking big, should also not forget to pay attention to smaller things which can make a big difference in ensuring affordable medical services to the people.​
 

If leaders don't trust local healthcare, why should citizens?

Shafiq R Bhuiyan

Published :
May 23, 2026 00:17
Updated :
May 23, 2026 00:17

1779492526966.webp


Every time a president, prime minister, minister, senior bureaucrat or influential politician travels abroad for medical care or even routine check-ups, it sends a clear message to the public: our own healthcare system is not good enough, not even for those in charge.

This message is even more concerning now, as Bangladesh faces one of its worst measles outbreaks in recent years.

According to the World Health Organisation, measles transmission has spread across 58 of Bangladesh's 64 districts. Between mid-March and mid-May this year, more than 55,611 suspected cases with nearly 7,416 laboratory-confirmed cases were reported, alongside over 451 suspected measles-related deaths. Around 79 per cent of the cases involved children under five.

UNICEF has warned that problems such as disrupted vaccination programmes, immunity gaps, misinformation, and declining public trust in vaccines have created a risky situation. In response, Bangladesh has started a nationwide emergency measles-rubella vaccination campaign for millions of children. Despite the crisis, most public discussion is focused on blaming for vaccine procurement, stockpiling, and past decisions.

But maybe we are not asking the right question. The real question is: after decades of economic growth, why do Bangladesh's most powerful citizens still not trust the country's healthcare system?

Today, Bangladesh makes medicines that meet international standards. Local pharmaceutical companies export to many countries and are a source of national pride. The country has also made great progress in immunisation over the years. Still, public trust in healthcare is very fragile.

Even wealthy urban families now often seek treatment abroad. Cities like Bangkok, Singapore, Chennai, and Kuala Lumpur have turned into popular healthcare destinations for Bangladesh's middle and upper classes. This is not just about better technology in other countries. It is about trust.

People want predictability, accountability, accurate diagnosis, ethical care, and reliable institutions. When these seem weak at home, people who can afford treatment abroad, decide to move to places of their choice.

Ironically, Bangladesh's medical education system has real strengths. Every year, hundreds of international students, especially from India, Nepal, Bhutan, and several African countries come to Bangladesh to study medicine. Many Bangladeshi doctors also do very well abroad and are recognised in international healthcare systems. This shows the country has strong human potential, academic ability, and a solid foundation in medical education.

Even though Bangladesh produces skilled graduates and attracts foreign medical students, it has not built a healthcare system that consistently earns public trust at home. The challenge involves governance, accountability, infrastructure, ethics, research, patient care standards, and institutional reliability.

The issue becomes even more complex when national leaders themselves continue to support this pattern.

If ministers, MPs, senior officials, and political elites always go abroad for treatment, why should they be in a hurry to fix healthcare at home? Those in power are often shielded from the struggles of regular patients in crowded hospitals, understaffed clinics, and poorly regulated diagnostic centres. No country can build world-class healthcare if its leaders are emotionally and physically disconnected from local institutions.

Malaysia is a good example. Decades ago, its leaders made a clear effort to improve local healthcare, medical education, nursing standards, and specialist training. As a result, Malaysia is a regional medical tourism hub, attracting many foreign patients, including thousands from Bangladesh each year.

Malaysia's leaders kept stressing the need to develop local doctors, nurses, and hospitals rather than rely on foreign healthcare. That national attitude made a difference.

When influential people rely on foreign healthcare, pressure to improve local hospitals drops. The recent measles outbreak shows this bigger institutional weakness. Measles is not just a viral problem; it is a systemic problem. It highlights gaps in public health management, vaccine trust, communication, primary healthcare outreach, and long-term planning.

WHO and UNICEF often say that measles outbreaks happen when immunisation coverage drops below 95 per cent. Even small disruptions can create risky gaps in immunity over time.

To restore public trust and truly reform Bangladesh's healthcare, both leaders and citizens must actively choose and advocate for improving local healthcare system. Leaders must lead by example-using and investing in local healthcare themselves-so that urgent, lasting reform becomes a national priority. Only by committing fully to local healthcare system will leaders inspire citizens' trust and drive national progress.​
 

Welcome move to reduce citizens' healthcare costs

FE

Published :
Jun 06, 2026 00:10
Updated :
Jun 06, 2026 00:10

1780712939417.webp


The incumbent BNP government's health sector allocation in the proposed budget for the next financial year (FY2026-27) marks a clear departure from those of the previous governments. Historically, the health sector allocations were not only routinely kept below 1.0 per cent of the GDP, but also a large part of whatever amounts were earmarked remained unspent.

Notably, in the proposed FY (2026-27)'s development budget, the health sector might get an allocation of Tk 355.30 billion, which is 11.86 per cent of the total ADP outlay, making it the third largest sector-wise allocation after transport and education. Obviously, this is a major boost for the health sector aimed at accelerating the rollout of health cards and the ruling party's election manifesto commitments. In this connection, the Finance Minister Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury at a recent discussion event held in the city told the audience that the government would introduce Universal Healthcare (UHC) in the next budget. Of course, the government's decision is welcome as it is indisputably a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the country's citizens bear a staggeringly high out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses which hovers around 75 per cent of their total healthcare costs. Small wonder that this enormous burden of meeting their healthcare expenditures has been pushing around 3.7 per cent of the total population which is over 6.0 million people below the poverty line every year. Under the circumstances, granted that the governments' move to make healthcare accessible to all with an emphasis on protecting the low-income and marginalised people is well-intentioned, yet, the implementability of the proposed health budget in the next ADP will remain an open question.

Such observation is based on earlier experience centring around the implementing agencies' poor performance regarding the projects under the health ministry. Consider that in the first 10 months of the current financial year (FY26), only less than 10 per cent of the annual allocation could be spent by the project implementation agencies under the health ministry. On this score, experts are of the view that such performance deficit has to do with weak implementation capacity, a cumbersome procurement and approval regime and the time-worn budgeting culture. In that case, effective utilisation of the health sector allocation is predicated on the government's commitment on carrying out institutional reforms and introducing the practice of sound financial management.

It is worthwhile to note at this point that during the interim government a Health Sector Reform Commission was constituted which was in favour of raising the health sector spending to 5.0 per cent of the GDP. Gratifyingly, the health expenditure target as spelt out in the ruling party's election manifesto also reflects an identical position. So far as the nation-wide implementation of the UHC projects as proposed towards reducing the public's OOP expenses is concerned, the good news is that the incumbent government has also expressed its intention to involve the private sector as well as the NGOs.

Given the private health service providers' and the health sector NGOS' long experience in executing programmes similar to those to be undertaken by the government for the health sector in the next ADP, it is expected that the move might help overcome the implementation-deficit that was symptomatic of the past cases of the government's healthcare projects. However, there are also other discrepancies in the existing healthcare delivery system of the government that need to be addressed. Those include a lack of skilled healthcare personnel, unequal distribution of resources between the urban and rural areas and heavy dependence of private healthcare providers, and so on. But going by the history, a mere goodwill, or just the size of the allocation for the health sector is not enough to improve the country's poor healthcare service. What matters is the political will of the government. Hopefully, the present government has that will and can live up to its pledges.​
 

Bangladesh's next health breakthrough
Salina Siddiqua, S M Abdullah, and Rumana Huque

Published :
Jun 16, 2026 22:48
Updated :
Jun 16, 2026 22:48

1781670616386.webp


A mother in a rural village should not have to travel hundreds of kilometres to Dhaka for a service that ought to be available at her local health facility. Yet this remains the reality for many Bangladeshis. While the country has earned global recognition for reducing maternal and child mortality and expanding immunisation coverage, millions still struggle to access basic healthcare close to home. The problem is not a lack of success stories. It is a lack of investment where it matters most: primary health care.

Bangladesh's public health achievements over the past three decades are remarkable. Life expectancy has increased, maternal and child mortality have fallen substantially, and immunisation coverage has become a global success story. These accomplishments demonstrate the country's ability to deliver effective health interventions despite limited resources. However, they also mask a growing vulnerability: a health system that remains heavily focused on treating illness rather than preventing it.

With the FY2026-27 national budget now announced, the debate should no longer centre on whether health deserves greater attention. The more pressing question is whether Bangladesh can continue to rely on overcrowded hospitals while underinvesting in the frontline services that prevent illness, detect disease early, and keep communities healthy. More importantly, the challenge is not simply how much the country spends on health, but whether those resources are directed towards the areas where they can deliver the greatest impact.

The first challenge is that Bangladesh has long spent too little on health and asked households to shoulder too much of the burden. Encouragingly, the proposed FY2026-27 budget signals a shift in priorities, with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare allocation almost doubling to around Tk 694.00 billion, raising public health spending to just above 1 per cent of GDP and about 7.4 percent of the national budget. This represents an important step forward. However, higher allocations alone will not be enough. Households still finance nearly 79 per cent of total health expenditure directly from their own pockets, one of the highest rates in the region. Despite the welcome increase in public spending, for many families, illness means borrowing money, selling productive assets, or delaying treatment altogether.

This financing model is not only inequitable; it is economically unsustainable. No country can achieve universal health coverage, sustain a productive workforce, or realise its development ambitions when millions remain vulnerable to financial catastrophe because of illness. Every untreated diabetic, unmanaged hypertensive patient, or preventable stroke represents not only a health loss but also a productivity loss. As Bangladesh prepares to graduate from the Least Developed Country (LDC) category and pursue upper-middle-income status, investing in health should be viewed not as social expenditure but as an investment in economic growth, human capital, and national productivity.

The second challenge is that Bangladesh's disease burden has changed, but the health system has not adapted quickly enough. Today non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancers, and chronic respiratory diseases account for nearly 70 per cent of all deaths in the country. These illnesses are driven by risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, air pollution, and rapid urbanisation.

Yet too many people enter the health system only after complications become severe. A patient with undiagnosed hypertension may first seek care after suffering a stroke. A person living with uncontrolled diabetes may only present when kidney failure or vision loss has already occurred. At this stage, treatment becomes far more expensive and outcomes far less favourable.

This is precisely where primary health care matters. Regular blood-pressure monitoring, blood-sugar screening, nutrition counselling, smoking-cessation support, and early referral services can identify health risks long before they become medical emergencies. Community-based prevention is not simply good public health; it is one of the most cost-effective investments a government can make.

Bangladesh has already demonstrated the power of prevention. The country's success in reducing child mortality was built not through sophisticated tertiary hospitals, but through community-based health services and immunisation programmes delivered close to where people live. Millions of children were protected from diseases such as measles, polio, diphtheria, and tetanus through sustained investments in grassroots health programmes. Recent concerns surrounding measles outbreaks are a reminder that maintaining public-health gains requires continuous investment and vigilance.

The same preventive approach must now be applied to the country's growing NCD crisis.

The third challenge is that healthcare resources remain disproportionately concentrated in urban tertiary facilities, while frontline services continue to face shortages of personnel, medicines, and diagnostic capacity. Evidence suggests that nearly 35 per cent of doctors and 30 per cent of nurses serve only 15 per cent of the population living in major cities, while rural districts continue to experience persistent workforce shortages.

The consequences are visible every day. Dhaka's major public hospitals operate far beyond their intended capacity. Dhaka Medical College Hospital alone receives approximately 5,000 outpatient visits and 1,300 emergency visits daily. Many patients travel long distances seeking treatment for conditions that could have been prevented, detected earlier, or managed effectively at the primary-care level. Hospitals are increasingly being forced to compensate for weaknesses elsewhere in the health system.

Global experience offers a different path. Thailand's universal health coverage reforms demonstrated how a strong primary-care foundation can dramatically reduce out-of-pocket spending while expanding access to essential services. Similarly, the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) places primary care at the centre of healthcare delivery, with General Practitioners serving as the first point of contact for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and referral. While no model should be directly duplicated, the lesson is clear: countries that invest in strong primary-care systems achieve better health outcomes at lower overall cost.

Bangladesh already possesses one of the key foundations required for such a transformation: an extensive network of primary-care facilities. What is lacking is sufficient investment, stronger governance, and a strategic shift in priorities.

The FY2026-27 budget provides an opportunity to begin that shift. The challenge now is not only to sustain higher public investment in health, but also to ensure that resources are used strategically. A larger share of public spending should be directed towards preventive and primary-care services, where the greatest health gains can be achieved. Essential medicines and diagnostic services must be consistently available at primary-care facilities. Rural doctors, nurses, and health workers should receive financial incentives, housing support, and professional-development opportunities to encourage long-term service in underserved areas. Expanding digital health systems, strengthening accountability mechanisms, and exploring sustainable financing options, including earmarking a portion of health taxes on products such as tobacco and sugary drinks for health promotion and primary-care strengthening, could further improve efficiency and reduce financial barriers to treatment.

Bangladesh stands at an important crossroads. The country can continue spending scarce resources treating advanced disease in overcrowded hospitals, or it can invest in preventing illness before it becomes costly, disabling, and sometimes fatal.

The evidence is overwhelming: stronger primary health care saves lives, reduces inequality, protects families from financial hardship, and delivers better value for public money. Bangladesh's next health breakthrough is unlikely to come from building more hospital beds alone. It will come from preventing disease, detecting illness early, and ensuring that quality care is available close to people's homes.

The real question facing policymakers is not whether Bangladesh can afford to invest more in primary health care. It is whether Bangladesh can afford not to.

Salina Siddiqua is Postgraduate Researcher, University of York, UK and Associate Professor (on Study Leave), Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, ssiddiqua@du.ac.bd; , Dr S M Abdullah is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh; abdullahsonnet@gmail.com; Dr Rumana Huque is Professor, Department of Economics, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh​
 

Latest Posts

Back