Challenges in international health financing and implications for the new pandemic fund

Financing pandemic prevention, preparedness and response: lessons learned and perspectives for future

BACKGROUND

The attainment of global health security goals and universal health coverage will remain a mirage unless African health systems are adequately funded to improve resilience to public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the global inequity in accessing medical countermeasures, leaving African countries far behind. As we anticipate the next pandemic, improving investments in health systems to adequately finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR) promptly, ensuring equity and access to medical countermeasures, is crucial. In this article, we analyze the African and global pandemic financing initiatives and put ways forward for policymakers and the global health community to consider.

METHODS

This article is based on a rapid literature review and desk review of various PPPR financing mechanisms in Africa and globally. Consultation of leaders and experts in the area and scrutinization of various related meeting reports and decisions have been carried out.

MAIN TEXT

The African Union (AU) has demonstrated various innovative financing mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of public health emergencies in the continent. To improve equal access to the COVID-19 medical countermeasures, the AU launched Africa Medical Supplies Platform (AMSP) and Africa Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). These financing initiatives were instrumental in mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 and their lessons can be capitalized as we make efforts for PPPR. The COVID-19 Response Fund, subsequently converted into the African Epidemics Fund (AEF), is another innovative financing mechanism to ensure sustainable and self-reliant PPPR efforts. The global initiatives for financing PPPR include the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) and the Pandemic Fund. The PEF was criticized for its inadequacy in building resilient health systems, primarily because the fund ignored the prevention and preparedness items. The Pandemic Fund is also being criticized for its suboptimal emphasis on the response aspect of the pandemic and non-inclusive governance structure.

CONCLUSIONS

To ensure optimal financing for PPPR, we call upon the global health community and decision-makers to focus on the harmonization of financing efforts for PPPR, make regional financing mechanisms central to global PPPR financing efforts, and ensure the inclusivity of international finance governance systems.

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.