Every time I read an article about this kind of thing, the big selling point usually refers to political and economic ease of eliminating a species of mosquito

Every time I read an article about this kind of thing, the big selling point usually refers to political and economic ease of eliminating a species of mosquito compared to other trying to fix distribution of medicine and improving infrastructure and health care access. This seems kind of backwards to me. Wouldn't working on the distribution problem be more effective than eliminating mosquito species? Obviously this is a much more difficult problem, but improvements in this area have benefits beyond disease elimination and treatment. That such things are difficult to achieve via current philanthropy efforts seems to highlight such philanthropy as flawed and in need of adjustment.