International Funding for Global Common Goods for Health: An Analysis Using the Creditor Reporting System and G-FINDER Databases

How feasible is it to mobilize $31 billion a year for pandemic preparedness and response? An economic growth modelling analysis

BACKGROUND

Covid-19 has reinforced health and economic cases for investing in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). The World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO) propose that low- and middle-income governments and donor countries should invest $31.1 billion each year for PPR. We analyse, based on the projected economic growth of countries between 2022 and 2027, how likely it is that low- and middle-income country governments and donors can mobilize the estimated funding.

METHODS

We modelled trends in economic growth to project domestic health spending by low- and middle-income governments and official development assistance (ODA) by donors for years 2022 to 2027. We modelled two scenarios for countries and donors - a constant and an optimistic scenario. Under the constant scenario we assume that countries and donors continue to dedicate the same proportion of their health spending and ODA as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national income (GNI), respectively, as they did during baseline (the latest year for which data are available). In the optimistic scenario, we assume a yearly increase of 2.5% in health spending as a share of GDP for countries and ODA as a share of GNI for donors.

FINDINGS

Our analysis shows that low-income countries would need to invest on average 37%, lower-middle income countries 9%, and upper-middle income countries 1%, of their total health spending on PPR each year under the constant scenario to meet the World Bank WHO targets. Donors would need to allocate on average 8% of their total ODA across all sectors to PPR each year to meet their target.

CONCLUSIONS

The World Bank WHO targets for PPR will not be met unless low- and middle-income governments and donors spend a much higher share of their funding on PPR. Even under optimistic growth scenarios, low-income and lower-middle income countries will require increased support from global health donors. The donor target cannot be met using the yearly increase in ODA under any scenario. If the country and donor targets are not met, the highest-impact health security measures need to be prioritized for funding. Alternative sources of PPR financing could include global taxation (e.g., on financial transactions, carbon, or airline flights), cancelling debt, and addressing illicit financial flows. There is also a need for continued work on estimating current PPR costs and funding requirements in order to arrive at more enduring and reliable estimates.

Did aid to the Ebola crisis divert aid for reproductive, maternal, and newborn health? An analysis of donor-reported data in Sierra Leone

BACKGROUND

Infectious disease outbreaks like Ebola and Covid-19 are increasing in frequency. They may harm reproductive, maternal and newborn health (RMNH) directly and indirectly. Sierra Leone experienced a sharp deterioration of RMNH during the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic. One possible explanation is that donor funding may have been diverted away from RMNH to the Ebola response.

METHODS

We analysed donor-reported data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reported System (CRS) data for Sierra Leone before, during and after the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic to understand whether aid flows for Ebola displaced aid for RMNH. We estimated aid for Ebola using key term searches and manual review of CRS records. We estimated aid for RMNH by applying the Muskoka-2 algorithm to the CRS and analysing CRS purpose codes.

RESULTS

We find substantial increases in aid to Sierra Leone (from $484 million in 2013 to $1 billion at the height of the epidemic in 2015), most of which was earmarked for the Ebola response. Overall, Ebola aid was additional to RMNH funding. RMNH aid was sustained during the epidemic (at $42 m per year) and peaked immediately after (at $77 m in 2016). There is some evidence of a small displacement of RMNH aid from the UK during the period when its Ebola funding increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Modest changes to RMNH donor aid patterns are insufficient to explain the severe decline in RMNH indicators recorded during the outbreak. Our findings therefore suggest the need for substantial increases in routine aid to ensure that basic RMNH services and infrastructure are strong before an epidemic occurs, as well as increased aid for RMNH during epidemics like Ebola and Covid-19, if reproductive, maternal and newborn healthcare is to be maintained at pre-epidemic levels.

Making development assistance work for Africa: from aid-dependent disease control to the new public health order

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has revealed the fragility of pre-crisis African health systems, in which too little was invested over the past decades. Yet, development assistance for health (DAH) more than doubled between 2000 and 2020, raising questions about the role and effectiveness of DAH in triggering and sustaining health systems investments. This paper analyses the inter-regional variations and trends of DAH in Africa in relation to some key indicators of health system financing and service delivery performance, examining (1) the trends of DAH in the five regional economic communities of Africa since 2000; (2) the relationship between DAH spending and health system performance indicators and (3) the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of aid substitution for domestic financing, policy-making and accountability. Africa is diverse and the health financing picture has evolved differently in its subregions. DAH represents 10% of total spending in Africa in 2020, but DAH benefitted Southern Africa significantly more than other regions over the past two decades. Results in terms of progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) are slightly associated with DAH. Overall, DAH may also have substituted for public domestic funding and undermined the formation of sustainable UHC financing models. As the COVID-19 crisis hit, DAH did not increase at the country level. We conclude that the current architecture of official development assistance (ODA) is no longer fit for purpose. It requires urgent transformation to place countries at the centre of its use. Domestic financing of public health institutions should be at the core of African social contracts. We call for a deliberate reassessment of ODA modalities, repurposing DAH on what it could sustainably finance. Finally, we call for a new transparent framework to monitor DAH that captures its contribution to building institutions and systems.

How did COVID-19 impact development assistance for health? - The trend for country-specific disbursement between 2015 and 2020

This study aimed to examine the changes that took place between 2015-2019 and 2020 and reveal how the COVID-19 pandemic affected financial contributions from donors. We used the Creditor Reporting System database of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to investigate donor disbursement. Focusing on the Group of Seven (G7) countries and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), we analyzed their development assistance for health (DAH) in 2020 and the change in their disbursement between 2015 and 2020. As a result, total disbursements for all sectors increased by 14% for the G7 and the BMGF. In 2020, there was an increase in DAH for the BMGF and the G7 except for the United States. The total disbursement amount for the "COVID-19" category by G7 countries and the BMGF was approximately USD 3 billion in 2020, which was 3 times larger than for Malaria, 8.5 times larger for Tuberculosis, and 60% smaller for STDs including HIV/AIDS for the same year. In 2020 as well, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, and Canada saw their disbursements decline for more than half of 26 sectors. In conclusion, the impact of COVID-19 was observed in the changes in DAH disbursement for three major infectious diseases and other sectors. To consistently address the health needs of low- and middle-income countries, it is important to perform a follow-up analysis of their COVID-19 disbursements and the influence of other DAH areas.

Global investments in pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: development assistance and domestic spending on health between 1990 and 2026

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in health surveillance systems, disease prevention, and treatment globally. Among the many factors that might have led to these gaps is the issue of the financing of national health systems, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as a robust global system for pandemic preparedness. We aimed to provide a comparative assessment of global health spending at the onset of the pandemic; characterise the amount of development assistance for pandemic preparedness and response disbursed in the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic; and examine expectations for future health spending and put into context the expected need for investment in pandemic preparedness.

METHODS

In this analysis of global health spending between 1990 and 2021, and prediction from 2021 to 2026, we estimated four sources of health spending: development assistance for health (DAH), government spending, out-of-pocket spending, and prepaid private spending across 204 countries and territories. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) to estimate spending. We estimated development assistance for general health, COVID-19 response, and pandemic preparedness and response using a keyword search. Health spending estimates were combined with estimates of resources needed for pandemic prevention and preparedness to analyse future health spending patterns, relative to need.

FINDINGS

In 2019, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, US$9·2 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·1-9·3) was spent on health worldwide. We found great disparities in the amount of resources devoted to health, with high-income countries spending $7·3 trillion (95% UI 7·2-7·4) in 2019; 293·7 times the $24·8 billion (95% UI 24·3-25·3) spent by low-income countries in 2019. That same year, $43·1 billion in development assistance was provided to maintain or improve health. The pandemic led to an unprecedented increase in development assistance targeted towards health; in 2020 and 2021, $1·8 billion in DAH contributions was provided towards pandemic preparedness in LMICs, and $37·8 billion was provided for the health-related COVID-19 response. Although the support for pandemic preparedness is 12·2% of the recommended target by the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP), the support provided for the health-related COVID-19 response is 252·2% of the recommended target. Additionally, projected spending estimates suggest that between 2022 and 2026, governments in 17 (95% UI 11-21) of the 137 LMICs will observe an increase in national government health spending equivalent to an addition of 1% of GDP, as recommended by the HLIP.

INTERPRETATION

There was an unprecedented scale-up in DAH in 2020 and 2021. We have a unique opportunity at this time to sustain funding for crucial global health functions, including pandemic preparedness. However, historical patterns of underfunding of pandemic preparedness suggest that deliberate effort must be made to ensure funding is maintained.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Tracking financing for global common goods for health: A machine learning approach using natural language processing techniques

Objective

Tracking global health funding is a crucial but time consuming and labor-intensive process. This study aimed to develop a framework to automate the tracking of global health spending using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) algorithms. We used the global common goods for health (CGH) categories developed by Schäferhoff et al. to design and evaluate ML models.

Methods

We used data curated by Schäferhoff et al., which tracked the official development assistance (ODA) disbursements to global CGH for 2013, 2015, and 2017, for training and validating the ML models. To process raw text, we implemented different NLP techniques, such as removing stop words, lemmatization, and creation of synthetic text, to balance the dataset. We used four supervised learning ML algorithms-random forest (RF), XGBOOST, support vector machine (SVM), and multinomial naïve Bayes (MNB) (see Glossary)-to train and test the pre-coded dataset, and applied the best model on dataset that hasn't been manually coded to predict the financing for CGH in 2019.

Results

After we trained the machine on the training dataset (n = 10,534), the weighted average F1-scores (a measure of a ML model's performance) on the testing dataset (n = 2,634) ranked 0.79-0.83 among four models, and the RF model had the best performance (F1-score = 0.83). The predicted total donor support for CGH projects by the RF model was $2.24 billion across 3 years, which was very close to the finding of $2.25 billion derived from coding and classification by humans. By applying the trained RF model on the 2019 dataset, we predicted that the total funding for global CGH was about $2.7 billion for 730 CGH projects.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that NLP and ML can be a feasible and efficient way to classify health projects into different global CGH categories, and thus track health funding for CGH routinely using data from publicly available databases.

Taking Systems Thinking to the Global Level: Using the WHO Building Blocks to Describe and Appraise the Global Health System in Relation to COVID-19

Adequately preparing for and containing global shocks, such as COVID-19, is a key challenge facing health systems globally. COVID-19 highlights that health systems are multilevel systems, a continuum from local to global. Goals and monitoring indicators have been key to strengthening national health systems but are missing at the supranational level. A framework to strengthen the global system-the global health actors and the governance, finance, and delivery arrangements within which they operate-is urgently needed. In this article, we illustrate how the World Health Organization Building Blocks framework, which has been used to monitor the performance of national health systems, can be applied to describe and appraise the global health system and its response to COVID-19, and identify potential reforms. Key weaknesses in the global response included: fragmented and voluntary financing; non-transparent pricing of medicines and supplies, poor quality standards, and inequities in procurement and distribution; and weak leadership and governance. We also identify positive achievements and identify potential reforms of the global health system for greater resilience to future shocks. We discuss the limitations of the Building Blocks framework and future research directions and reflect on political economy challenges to reform.

Japan's development assistance for health: Historical trends and prospects for a new era

The year 2020 marked an important turning point in Japan's global health policy. While the global health community has been suffering serious damage to sustainable health financing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an independent commission on Japan's Strategy on Development Assistance for Health (DAH) launched an ambitious policy recommendation to double the amount of Japan's DAH during the post-COVID-19 era. This paper examines historical trends in DAH in Japan over the past 30 years based on published literature and comprehensive DAH tracking data and highlights priority areas for discussion on how DAH can be advanced to ensure equitable and efficient use of limited resources to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, including universal health coverage and pandemic preparedness, in low- and middle-income countries. Priority areas for discussion include: how and where to focus DAH for equitable health gains; how to provide DAH to support health system strengthening, including pandemic preparedness; and clarifying the role of DAH in global health functions.

Achieving global mortality reduction targets and universal health coverage: The impact of COVID-19

Wenhui Mao and coauthors discuss possible implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health aspirations in low- and middle-income countries.

A systematic examination of international funding flows for Ebola virus and Zika virus outbreaks 2014-2019: donors, recipients and funding purposes

Introduction

There has been no systematic comparison of how the policy response to past infectious disease outbreaks and epidemics was funded. This study aims to collate and analyse funding for the Ebola epidemic and Zika outbreak between 2014 and 2019 in order to understand the shortcomings in funding reporting and suggest improvements.

Methods

Data were collected via a literature review and analysis of financial reporting databases, including both amounts donated and received. Funding information from three financial databases was analysed: Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation’s Development Assistance for Health database, the Georgetown Infectious Disease Atlas and the United Nations Financial Tracking Service. A systematic literature search strategy was devised and applied to seven databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and EconLit. Funding information was extracted from articles meeting the eligibility criteria and measures were taken to avoid double counting. Funding was collated, then amounts and purposes were compared within, and between, data sources.

Results

Large differences between funding reported by different data sources, and variations in format and methodology, made it difficult to arrive at precise estimates of funding amounts and purpose. Total disbursements reported by the databases ranged from $2.5 to $3.2 billion for Ebola and $150–$180 million for Zika. Total funding reported in the literature is greater than reported in databases, suggesting that databases may either miss funding, or that literature sources overreport. Databases and literature disagreed on the main purpose of funding for socioeconomic recovery versus outbreak response. One of the few consistent findings across data sources and diseases is that the USA was the largest donor.

Conclusion

Implementation of several recommendations would enable more effective mapping and deployment of outbreak funding for response activities relating to COVID-19 and future epidemics.

Health sector spending and spending on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and development assistance for health: progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3

BACKGROUND

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to "ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages". While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available.

METHODS

We estimated domestic health spending, disaggregated by source (government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private) from 1995 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. For disease-specific health spending, we estimated spending for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis for 135 low-income and middle-income countries, and malaria in 106 malaria-endemic countries, from 2000 to 2017. We also estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2019, by source, disbursing development agency, recipient, and health focus area, including DAH for pandemic preparedness. Finally, we estimated future health spending for 195 countries and territories from 2018 until 2030. We report all spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2019 US$, unless otherwise stated.

FINDINGS

Since the development and implementation of the SDGs in 2015, global health spending has increased, reaching $7·9 trillion (95% uncertainty interval 7·8-8·0) in 2017 and is expected to increase to $11·0 trillion (10·7-11·2) by 2030. In 2017, in low-income and middle-income countries spending on HIV/AIDS was $20·2 billion (17·0-25·0) and on tuberculosis it was $10·9 billion (10·3-11·8), and in malaria-endemic countries spending on malaria was $5·1 billion (4·9-5·4). Development assistance for health was $40·6 billion in 2019 and HIV/AIDS has been the health focus area to receive the highest contribution since 2004. In 2019, $374 million of DAH was provided for pandemic preparedness, less than 1% of DAH. Although spending has increased across HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria since 2015, spending has not increased in all countries, and outcomes in terms of prevalence, incidence, and per-capita spending have been mixed. The proportion of health spending from pooled sources is expected to increase from 81·6% (81·6-81·7) in 2015 to 83·1% (82·8-83·3) in 2030.

INTERPRETATION

Health spending on SDG3 priority areas has increased, but not in all countries, and progress towards meeting the SDG3 targets has been mixed and has varied by country and by target. The evidence on the scale-up of spending and improvements in health outcomes suggest a nuanced relationship, such that increases in spending do not always results in improvements in outcomes. Although countries will probably need more resources to achieve SDG3, other constraints in the broader health system such as inefficient allocation of resources across interventions and populations, weak governance systems, human resource shortages, and drug shortages, will also need to be addressed.

FUNDING

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

When Both Markets and Governments Fail Health

This paper presents the rationale and motivation for countries and the global development community to tackle a critical set of functions in the health sector that appear to be under-prioritized and underfunded. The recent eruptions of Ebola outbreaks in Africa and other communicable diseases like Zika and SARS elsewhere led scientific and medical commissions to call for global action. The calls for action motivated the World Health Organization (WHO) to respond by defining a new construct within the health sector: Common Good for Health (CGH). While the starting point for developing the CGH construct was the re-emergence of communicable diseases, it extends to additional outcomes resulting from failures to act and finance within and outside the health sector. This paper summarizes global evidence on failures to address CGHs effectively, identifies potential reasons for the public and private sectors' failures to respond, and lays out the first phase of the WHO program as represented by the papers in this special issue of Health Systems & Reform.