(CNN)— After the last two days of committee, WPRO/SEARO discussed topics from child marriage to the lack of resources in their region. One topic that seemed prevalent and pervasive was the lack of resources, or the lack of distribution of resources. Mobile clinics were brought up by the Philippians. Mobile clinics are now, according to the World Health Organization, helping people around the world in their worst crises. They are simply mobile trucks with supplies that are required for basic, primary care. There is a scramble to use these mobile clinics and there is already discussion surrounding WPRO/SEARO.
WPRO/SEAR, eventually, went into depth on the topic. Perhaps, into to too much depth. Though it is important to look at different aspects of a policy, time was wasted when spending brainpower on just exactly how efficient mobile clinics were. This should have been a topic that people had sufficient information on; they should have had to only talk about which countries may have needed mobile clinics the most. Instead, they started conversation on “what ifs.” One thing that kept coming up is the price and value of mobile clinics. How would different countries reach places that are hard to reach (due to physical terrain or due to lack of resources). However, one key factor that they forgot was that mobile clinics have the purpose to reach these hard to find areas. They are supposed to go to remote villages and go through rough terrain. Another concern was the prices of mobile clinics; how would poorer regions ever be able to afford these mobile clinics? Again, the point of mobile clinics is to be cheap; the point of mobile clinics is to provide primary car to regions that can’t afford it through traditional means. Furthermore, mobile clinics are not that expensive, as the Delegate of Nepal pointed out. Why was so much time spent talking about these details, when the answer lies in front of them?
Mobile clinics are also effective in areas of the United States. According to the National Institute of Health, “many studies show that Mobile Health Clinics are effective in facilitating access to health care, particularly for minority groups.” Furthermore, the different disadvantaged groups were listed: transportation/geographic barriers, insurance status, legal status, financial costs, linguistic and cultural barriers, lack of healthcare providers, perceived absence of patient-centered care, psychological barriers, intimidation by healthcare settings, hours of operation, anonymity concerns. These all indicate that there is so much value in mobile clinics; they have the potential to provide relief and aid to so many people in so many regions of so many countries. The AFRO region was able to vote and come to a consensus over policy so early in the program, because they had a goal and worked towards it. While other regions did a good job talking about these important issues, like the WPRO/SEARO region, they would often go off on tangents on topics that not so much time should have been spent on. The valuable time spent on talking about the effectiveness of mobile clinics could have been used to set guidelines on policy (remember, the effectiveness of mobile clinics has also been shown again and again). It is good that they are working hard to ensure the best for their nations, but they should remember that time is limited, not only for the conference, but also for the people who are depending on the help and policy of WHO delegates.