People in poor countries tend to have less access to health services than those in better-off countries, and within countries, the poor have less access to health services. This article documents disparities in access to health services in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), using a framework incorporating quality, geographic accessibility, availability, financial accessibility, and acceptability of services. Whereas the poor in LMICs are consistently at a disadvantage in each of the dimensions of access and their determinants, this need not be the case. Many different approaches are shown to improve access to the poor, using targeted or universal approaches, engaging government, nongovernmental, or commercial organizations, and pursuing a wide variety of strategies to finance and organize services. Key ingredients of success include concerted efforts to reach the poor, engaging communities and disadvantaged people, encouraging local adaptation, and careful monitoring of effects on the poor. Yet governments in LMICs rarely focus on the poor in their policies or the implementation or monitoring of health service strategies. There are also new innovations in financing, delivery, and regulation of health services that hold promise for improving access to the poor, such as the use of health equity funds, conditional cash transfers, and coproduction and regulation of health services. The challenge remains to find ways to ensure that vulnerable populations have a say in how strategies are developed, implemented, and accounted for in ways that demonstrate improvements in access by the poor.

Health equity is high on the international agenda. This study provides evidence of how health systems can be strengthened to improve health equity in a low-income state. The paper presents a case study of how the Government of Odisha in eastern India is transforming the health system for more equitable health and nutrition outcomes. Odisha has a population of over 42 million, high levels of poverty, and poor maternal and child health concentrated in its Southern districts and among Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste communities. Conducted between 2008 and 2012 with the Departments of Health and Family Welfare, and Women and Child Development, the study reviewed a wide range of literature including policy and programme documents, evaluations and studies, published and grey material, and undertook secondary analysis of state level household surveys. It identifies innovative and expanded provision of health services, reforms to the management and development of human resources for health, and the introduction of a number of cash transfer and entitlement schemes as contributing to closing the gap between maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes of Scheduled Tribes, and the Southern districts, compared to the state average. The institutional delivery rate for Scheduled Tribes has risen from 11.7% in 2005-06 to 67.3% in 2011, and from 35.6% to 79.8% for all women. The social gradient has also closed for antenatal and postnatal care and immunisation. Nutrition indicators though improving are proving slower to budge. The paper identifies how political will, committed policy makers and fiscal space energised the health system to promote equity. Sustained political commitment will be required to continue to address the more challenging human resource, health financing and gender issues.

In this reply to Stephen Humphreys, we challenge the dismissal of future generations as a locus of responsibility for present generations. Drawing from diverse sources such as indigenous law, environmental jurisprudence and practice, we demonstrate that global discourse on intergenerationality is broader and more nuanced than Humphreys suggests. Our response highlights the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives to enrich discourse and promote an inclusive approach to the progressive development of international law. Further, we contend that ‘future generations’ discourse has emancipatory power, offering potential for reshaping international law based on a vision of justice and solidarity across time and space. We call for increased dialogue and collaboration among scholars, practitioners and frontline communities to ensure that future generations discourse remains grounded in real-world experiences. By persistently interrogating and developing our understanding of responsibilities owed to future generations, we can imagine and cultivate a more inclusive – and, hence, more promising – approach to addressing climate change and related global crises.