Leopard or chameleon? The changing character of international health economics

Global trends in the scientific research of the health economics: a bibliometric analysis from 1975 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Health science is evolving extremely rapidly at worldwide level. There is a large volume of articles about health economics that are published each year. The main purpose of this research is to explore health economics in the world's scholarly literature based on a scient metric analysis to outline the evolution of research in the field.

METHOD

The Web of Science repository was used to get the data (1975-2022). The study explores 1620 documents from health economics. CiteSpace software was used to provide network visualisations. Four thousand ninety-six authors, 1723 institutions, 847 journals and 82 countries were involved in the sample. The current research contains a descriptive analysis, a co-authorship analysis, a co-citation analysis, and a co-occurrence analysis in health economics.

RESULTS

Drummond M.F (author), the USA (country), University of London (institution) and Value Health (journal) are among the most important contributors to the health economics literature. Co-authorship analysis highlights that cooperation between authors, institutions and countries is weak. However, Drummond M.F. is the most collaborative author, the USA is the most collaborative country, and University of York is the most collaborative institution. The study offers an image about the most co-cited references (Arrow K.J., 1963), authors (Margolis H.) and journals (British Medical Journal). The current research hotspots in health economics are "behavioural economics" and "economic evaluation". The main findings should be interpreted in accordance with the selection strategy used in this paper.

CONCLUSION

All in all, the paper maps the literature on health economics and may be used for future research.

Management Matters: A Leverage Point for Health Systems Strengthening in Global Health

Despite a renewed focus in the field of global health on strengthening health systems, inadequate attention has been directed to a key ingredient of high-performing health systems: management. We aimed to develop the argument that management - defined here as the process of achieving predetermined objectives through human, financial, and technical resources - is a cross-cutting function necessary for success in all World Health Organization (WHO) building blocks of health systems strengthening. Management within health systems is particularly critical in low-income settings where the efficient use of scarce resources is paramount to attaining health goals. More generally, investments in management capacity may be viewed as a key leverage point in grand strategy, as strong management enables the achievement of large ends with limited means. We also sought to delineate a set of core competencies and identify key roles to be targeted for management capacity building efforts. Several effective examples of management interventions have been described in the research literature. Together, the existing evidence underscores the importance of country ownership of management capacity building efforts, which often challenge the status quo and thus need country leadership to sustain despite inevitable friction. The literature also recognizes that management capacity efforts, as a key ingredient of effective systems change, take time to embed, as new protocols and ways of working become habitual and integrated as standard operating procedures. Despite these challenges, the field of health management as part of global health system strengthening efforts holds promise as a fundamental leverage point for achieving health system performance goals with existing human, technical, and financial resources. The evidence base consistently supports the role of management in performance improvement but would benefit from additional research with improved methodological rigor and longer-time horizon investigations. Meanwhile, greater emphasis on management as a critical element of global health efforts may open new and sustainable avenues for advancing health systems performance.

Framing global health: the governance challenge

With the emergence of global health comes governance challenges which are equally global in nature. This article identifies some of the initial limitations in analyses of global health governance (GHG) before discussing the focus of this special supplement: the framing of global health issues and the manner in which this impacts upon GHG. Whilst not denying the importance of material factors (such as resources and institutional competencies), the article identifies how issues can be framed in different ways, thereby creating particular pathways of response which in turn affect the potential for and nature of GHG. It also identifies and discusses the key frames operating in global health: evidence-based medicine, human rights, security, economics and development.

Malaria eradication: the economic, financial and institutional challenge

Malaria eradication raises many economic, financial and institutional challenges. This paper reviews these challenges, drawing on evidence from previous efforts to eradicate malaria, with a special focus on resource-poor settings; summarizes more recent evidence on the challenges, drawing on the literature on the difficulties of scaling-up malaria control and strengthening health systems more broadly; and explores the implications of these bodies of evidence for the current call for elimination and intensified control. Economic analyses dating from the eradication era, and more recent analyses, suggest that, in general, the benefits of malaria control outweigh the costs, though few studies have looked at the relative returns to eradication versus long-term control. Estimates of financial costs are scanty and difficult to compare. In the 1960s, the consolidation phase appeared to cost less than $1 per capita and, in 1988, was estimated to be $2.31 per capita (both in 2006 prices). More recent estimates for high coverage of control measures suggest a per capita cost of several dollars. Institutional challenges faced by malaria eradication included limits to the rule of law (a major problem where malaria was concentrated in border areas with movement of people associated with illegal activities), the existence and performance of local implementing structures, and political sustainability at national and global levels. Recent analyses of the constraints to scaling-up malaria control, together with the historical evidence, are used to discuss the economic, financial and institutional challenges that face the renewed call for eradication and intensified control. The paper concludes by identifying a research agenda covering: issues of the allocative efficiency of malaria eradication, especially using macro-economic modelling to estimate the benefits and costs of malaria eradication and intensified control, and studies of the links between malaria control and economic development, the costs and consequences of the various tools and mixes of tools employed in control and eradication, issues concerning the extension of coverage of interventions and service delivery approaches, especially those that can reach the poorest, research on the processes of formulating and implementing malaria control and eradication policies, at both international and national levels, research on financing issues, at global and national levels.

S4HARA: System for HIV/AIDS resource allocation

Background

HIV/AIDS resource allocation decisions are influenced by political, social, ethical and other factors that are difficult to quantify. Consequently, quantitative models of HIV/AIDS resource allocation have had limited impact on actual spending decisions. We propose a decision-support System for HIV/AIDS Resource Allocation (S4HARA) that takes into consideration both principles of efficient resource allocation and the role of non-quantifiable influences on the decision-making process for resource allocation.

Methods

S4HARA is a four-step spreadsheet-based model. The first step serves to identify the factors currently influencing HIV/AIDS allocation decisions. The second step consists of prioritizing HIV/AIDS interventions. The third step involves allocating the budget to the HIV/AIDS interventions using a rational approach. Decision-makers can select from several rational models of resource allocation depending on availability of data and level of complexity. The last step combines the results of the first and third steps to highlight the influencing factors that act as barriers or facilitators to the results suggested by the rational resource allocation approach. Actionable recommendations are then made to improve the allocation. We illustrate S4HARA in the context of a primary healthcare clinic in South Africa.

Results

The clinic offers six types of HIV/AIDS interventions and spends US$750,000 annually on these programs. Current allocation decisions are influenced by donors, NGOs and the government as well as by ethical and religious factors. Without additional funding, an optimal allocation of the total budget suggests that the portion allotted to condom distribution be increased from 1% to 15% and the portion allotted to prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections be increased from 43% to 71%, while allocation to other interventions should decrease.

Conclusion

Condom uptake at the clinic should be increased by changing the condom distribution policy from a pull system to a push system. NGOs and donors promoting antiretroviral programs at the clinic should be sensitized to the results of the model and urged to invest in wellness programs aimed at the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections. S4HARA differentiates itself from other decision support tools by providing rational HIV/AIDS resource allocation capabilities as well as consideration of the realities facing authorities in their decision-making process.

Variation in average costs among federally sponsored state-organized cancer detection programs: economies of scale?

BACKGROUND

Societal cost-effectiveness analysis and its variants help decision makers achieve an efficient allocation of resources across the set of all possible health interventions. Sometimes, however, decision makers are focused instead on the efficient allocation of resources within a particular intervention program that has already been implemented. This is especially true when the intervention is being delivered at several different sites. An analysis of average cost across program sites may help program officials to maximize the health benefits that can be achieved with limited resources. In this article, the authors present such an analysis, with special attention paid to the possible existence and implications of economies of scale.

METHODS

Focusing on federally sponsored, state-organized cancer detection programs, the authors modeled 19 state programs as productive processes and examined their average costs over a 2- to 5-year period of operation. They considered 3 alternative definitions of output: women served, screens performed, and conditions detected. Average federal costs and average total costs were estimated for each grant period. Multivariate regression analysis was used to help explain the variation in average costs.

RESULTS

The average cost estimates were distributed in a skewed pattern with the majority of observations falling close to the median and substantially below the mean. For all measures considered, average cost decreased as output expanded. This inverse relationship between average cost and output level persisted even after controlling for the effects of other predictors, suggesting the possible existence of economies of scale.

DISCUSSION

The potential existence of economies of scale calls into question the assumption of a constant average cost frequently made in economic analyses of proposed public health programs. It also implies that a) differences in output level should be taken into account when comparing operating efficiency across program sites; b) conclusions from societal cost-effectiveness analyses may depend on the level of output at which the programs are evaluated; c) cost projections could be inaccurate if they do not take into account the decrease in average cost that occurs as output expands; and d) gains might be possible if similar programs with limited output potential are integrated, perhaps through cost sharing.