Financial contribution to global surgery: an analysis of 160 international charitable organisations.

BACKGROUND: The non-profit and volunteer sector provides substantial contributions to global health. Within the field of surgery, this sector has made notable service contributions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) where access to surgical care is poor. Little is known about financing and funding flows to surgical care in LMICs from both domestic and international sources. Because an estimated 55% of surgical care delivered in LMICs is via charitable organisations, understanding the financial contributions of this sector could provide valuable insight into estimating funding flows and understanding financing priorities in global surgery. METHODS: Between June, and September, 2014, we searched public online databases of registered charitable organisations in five high-income nations (the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) to identify organisations committed exclusively to surgical needs. Based on availability, the most current 5 years (2007-13) of financial data per organisation were collected. For each charitable organisation, we identified the type of surgical services provided. We examined revenues and expenditures for each organisation. FINDINGS: 160 organisations representing 15 different surgical specialties were included in the analysis. Total aggregated revenue over the years 2008-2013 was US$3·3 billion. Total aggregated expenses for all 160 organisations amounted to US$3·0 billion. 28 ophthalmology organisations accounted for 45% of revenue and 49% of expenses. 15 cleft lip and palate organisations totalled 26% of both revenue and expenses. 19 organisations providing a mix of diverse surgical specialty services amounted to 14% of revenue and 16% of expenses. The remaining 15% of funds represented 12 specialties and 98 organisations. The US accounted for 77·7% of revenue and 80·8% of expenses. The UK accounted for 11·0% of revenue and 11·91% of expenses. Canada accounted for 1·85% of revenue and 2·01% of expenses. Australia and New Zealand accounted for 4·94% of revenue and 5·29% of expenses. INTERPRETATION: Charitable organisations addressing surgical conditions primarily focus on elective surgical care and cover a broad range of subspecialties. The largest funding flows from charitable organisations are directed at ophthalmology, followed by cleft lip and palate surgery. However, there is a clear need for improved, transparent tracking of funds to global surgery via charitable organisations. FUNDING: None.

Funding flows to global surgery: an analysis of contributions from the USA.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, funds for global health have risen substantially, particularly for infectious diseases. Although conditions amenable to surgery account for 28% of the global burden of disease, the external funds directed towards global surgical delivery, capacity building, and research are currently unknown and presumed to be low. We aimed to describe external funds given to these efforts from the USA, the world's largest donor nation. METHODS: We searched the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), National Institute of Health (NIH), Foundation Center, and registered US charitable organisations databases for financial data on any giving exclusively to surgical care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). All nominal dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 US dollars. FINDINGS: After adjustment for inflation, 22 NIH funded projects (totalling US$31·3 million, 1991-2014) were identified; 78·9% for trauma and injury, 12·5% for general surgery, and 8·6% for ophthalmology. Six relevant USAID projects were identified; all related to obstetric fistula care totalling US$438 million (2006-13). US$105 million (2003-13) was given to universities and charitable organisations by US foundations for 14 different surgical specialties (ophthalmology, cleft lip/palate, multidisciplinary teams, orthopaedics, cardiac, paediatric, reconstructive, obstetric fistula, neurosurgery, burn, general surgery, obstetric emergency procedures, anaesthesia, and unspecified specialty). 95 US charitable organisations representing 14 specialties (ophthalmology, cleft lip/palate, multidisciplinary teams, orthopaedics, cardiac, paediatric, reconstructive, obstetric fistula, neurosurgery, urology, ENT, craniofacial, burn, and general surgery) totalled revenue of US$2·67 billion and expenditure of US$2·5 billion (2007-13). INTERPRETATION: A strong surgical system is an indispensable part of any health system and requires financial investment. Tracking funds targeting surgery helps not only to quantify and clarify this investment, but also to ultimately serve as a platform to integrate surgical spending within health system strengthening. Although USAID is a vital foreign aid service and the NIH is a leader in biomedical and health research, their surgical scopes are restricted both financially (less than 1% of respective total budgets over the study years) and in surgical specialty. By contrast, the private charitable sector has contributed more financially and to more specialties. Still, current financial global health databases do not have precise data for surgery. To improve population health in LMICs, more resources should be dedicated to surgical system strengthening. Furthermore, exact classification measures should be implemented to track these important resources. FUNDING: None.

Measuring and Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Care Delivery in Low-Resource Settings: Cleft Lip and Palate as a Model.

Cleft lip and palate (CLP) care is the longest sustained global effort in humanitarian surgical care. However, the relative cost-effectiveness of surgical delivery approaches remains largely unknown. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of two strategies of CLP surgical care delivery in low resource settings: medical mission and comprehensive care center. We evaluated the medical records and costs for 17 India-based medical missions and a Comprehensive Cleft Care Center in Guwahati, India, from Operation Smile, a humanitarian nongovernmental organization. Age, sex, diagnosis, and procedures were extracted and cost/Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) averted was calculated using a provider's perspective. The disability weights for CLP from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 update were used as the reference case. Sensitivity analysis was performed using various disability weights, age-weighting, discounting, and cost perspective. The medical missions treated 3503 patients for first-time cleft procedures and averted 6.00 DALYs per intervention with a cost-effectiveness of $247.42/DALY. The care center cohort included 2778 patients with first-time operations for CLP and averted a mean of 5.96 DALYs per intervention with a cost-effectiveness of $189.81/DALY. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of choosing medical mission over care center is $462.55. The care center provides cleft care with a higher cost-effectiveness, although both models are highly cost-effective in India, in accordance with WHO guidelines. Compared to other global health interventions, cleft care is very cost-effective and investment in cleft surgery might be realistic and achievable in similar resource-constrained environments.

Surgical education through video broadcasting.

Surgical training is facing new obstacles. As advancements in medicine are made, surgeons are expected to know more and to be able to perform more procedures. In the western world, increasing restrictions on residency work hours are adding a new hurdle to surgical training. In low-resource settings, a low attending-to-resident ratio results in limited operative experience for residents. Advances in telemedicine may offer new methods for surgical training. In this article, the authors share their unique experience using live video broadcasting of surgery for educational purposes at a comprehensive cleft care center in Guwahati, India.

Providing more than health care: the dynamics of humanitarian surgery efforts on the local microeconomy.

Humanitarian cleft surgery has long been provided by teams from resource-rich countries traveling for short-term missions to resource-poor countries. After identifying an area of durable unmet need through surgical missions, Operation Smile constructed a permanent center for cleft care in Northeast India. The Operation Smile Guwahati Comprehensive Cleft Care Center (GCCCC) uses a high-volume subspecialized institution to provide safe, quality, comprehensive, and cost-effective cleft care to a highly vulnerable patient population in Assam, India. The purpose of this study was to profile the expenses of several cleft missions carried out in Assam and to compare these to the expenditures of the permanent comprehensive cleft care center. We reviewed financial data from 4 Operation Smile missions in Assam between December 2009 and February 2011 and from the GCCCC for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. Expenses from the 2 models were categorized and compared. In the studied period, 33% of the mission expenses were spent locally compared to 94% of those of the center. The largest expenses in the mission model were air travel (48.8%) and hotel expenses (21.6%) for the team, whereas salaries (46.3%) and infrastructure costs (19.8%) made up the largest fractions of expenses in the center model. The evolution from mission-based care to a specialty hospital model in Guwahati incorporated a transition from vertical inputs to investments in infrastructure and human capital to create a sustainable local care delivery system.

Global Patterns of QALY and DALY Use in Surgical Cost-Utility Analyses: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical interventions are being increasingly recognized as cost-effective global priorities, the utility of which are frequently measured using either quality-adjusted (QALY) or disability-adjusted (DALY) life years. The objectives of this study were to: (1) identify surgical cost-effectiveness studies that utilized a formulation of the QALY or DALY as a summary measure, (2) report on global patterns of QALY and DALY use in surgery and the income characteristics of the countries and/or regions involved, and (3) assess for possible associations between national/regional-income levels and the relative prominence of either measure. STUDY DESIGN: PRISMA-guided systematic review of surgical cost-effectiveness studies indexed in PubMed or EMBASE prior to December 15, 2014, that used the DALY and/or QALY as a summary measure. National locations were used to classify publications based on the 2014 World Bank income stratification scheme into: low-, lower-middle-, upper-middle-, or high-income countries. Differences in QALY/DALY use were considered by income level as well as for differences in geographic location and year using descriptive statistics (two-sided Chi-squared tests, Fischer's exact tests in cell counts <5). RESULTS: A total of 540 publications from 128 countries met inclusion criteria, representing 825 "national studies" (regional publications included data from multiple countries). Data for 69.0% (569/825) were reported using QALYs (2.1% low-, 1.2% lower-middle-, 4.4% upper-middle-, and 92.3% high-income countries), compared to 31.0% (256/825) reported using DALYs (46.9% low-, 31.6% lower-middle-, 16.8% upper-middle-, and 4.7% high-income countries) (p<0.001). Studies from the US and the UK dominated the total number of QALY studies (49.9%) and were themselves almost exclusively QALY-based. DALY use, in contrast, was the most common in Africa and Asia. While prominent published use of QALYs (1990s) in surgical cost-effectiveness studies began approximately 10 years earlier than DALYs (2000s), the use of both measures continues to increase. CONCLUSION: As global prioritization of surgical interventions gains prominence, it will be important to consider the comparative implications of summary measure use. The results of this study demonstrate significant income- and geographic-based differences in the preferential utilization of the QALY and DALY for surgical cost-effectiveness studies. Such regional variation holds important implications for efforts to interpret and utilize global health policy research. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015015991.

Inequalities in Specialist Hand Surgeon Distribution across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Unequal access to hospital specialists for emergency care is an issue in the United States. The authors sought to describe the geographic distribution of specialist hand surgeons and associated factors in the United States. METHODS: Geographic distributions of surgeons holding a Subspecialty Certificate in Surgery of the Hand and hand surgery fellowship positions were identified from the American Board of Medical Specialties Database and the literature (2013), respectively. State-level population and per capita income were ascertained using U.S. Census data. Variations in hand trauma admissions were determined using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project national/state inpatient databases. Risk-adjusted generalized linear models were used to assess independent association between hand surgeon density and hand trauma admission density, fellowship position density, and per capita income. RESULTS: Among 2019 specialist hand surgeons identified, 72.1 percent were orthopedic surgeons, 18.3 percent were plastic surgeons, and 9.6 percent were general surgeons. There were 157 hand surgery fellowship positions nationwide. There were 149,295 annual hand trauma admissions. The national density of specialist hand surgeons and density of trauma admission were 0.6 and 47.6, respectively. The density of specialist hand surgeons varied significantly between states. State-level variations in density of surgeons were independent and significantly associated with median per capita income (p < 0.001) and with density of fellowships (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Specialist hand surgeons are distributed unevenly across the United States. State-level analyses suggest that states with lower per capita incomes may be particularly underserved, which may contribute to regional disparities in access to emergency hand trauma care.

Funding allocation to surgery in low and middle-income countries: a retrospective analysis of contributions from the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The funds available for global surgical delivery, capacity building and research are unknown and presumed to be low. Meanwhile, conditions amenable to surgery are estimated to account for nearly 30% of the global burden of disease. We describe funds given to these efforts from the USA, the world's largest donor nation. DESIGN: Retrospective database review. US Agency for International Development (USAID), National Institute of Health (NIH), Foundation Center and registered US charitable organisations were searched for financial data on any organisation giving exclusively to surgical care in low and middle income countries (LMICs). For USAID, NIH and Foundation Center all available data for all years were included. The five recent years of financial data per charitable organisation were included. All nominal dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 US dollars. SETTING: USA. PARTICIPANTS: USAID, NIH, Foundation Center, Charitable Organisations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative funds appropriated to global surgery. RESULTS: 22 NIH funded projects (totalling $31.3 million) were identified, primarily related to injury and trauma. Six relevant USAID projects were identified-all obstetric fistula care totalling $438 million. A total of $105 million was given to universities and charitable organisations by US foundations for 12 different surgical specialties. 95 US charitable organisations representing 14 specialties totalled revenue of $2.67 billion and expenditure of $2.5 billion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Current funding flows to surgical care in LMICs are poorly understood. US funding predominantly comes from private charitable organisations, is often narrowly focused and does not always reflect local needs or support capacity building. Improving surgical care, and embedding it within national health systems in LMICs, will likely require greater financial investment. Tracking funds targeting surgery helps to quantify and clarify current investments and funding gaps, ensures resources materialise from promises and promotes transparency within global health financing.