Rethinking how development assistance for health can catalyse progress on primary health care.

Global campaigns to control HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and vaccine-preventable illnesses showed that large-scale impact can be achieved by using additional international financing to support selected, evidence-based, high-impact investment areas and to catalyse domestic resource mobilisation. Building on this paradigm, we make the case for targeting additional international funding for selected high-impact investments in primary health care. We have identified and costed a set of concrete, evidence-based investments that donors could support, which would be expected to have major impacts at an affordable cost. These investments are in: (1) individuals and communities empowered to engage in health decision making, (2) a new model of people-centred primary care, and (3) next generation community health workers. These three areas would be supported by strengthening two cross-cutting elements of national systems. The first is the digital tools and data that support facility, district, and national managers to improve processes, quality of care, and accountability across primary health care. The second is the educational, training, and supervisory systems needed to improve the quality of care. We estimate that with an additional international investment of between US$1·87 billion in a low-investment scenario and $3·85 billion in a high-investment scenario annually over the next 3 years, the international community could support the scale-up of this evidence-based package of investments in the 59 low-income and middle-income countries that are eligible for external financing from the World Bank Group's International Development Association.

Evolving methodology of national tobacco control investment cases.

BACKGROUND: This article describes an investment case methodology for tobacco control that was applied in 36 countries between 2017 and 2022. METHODS: The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) investment cases compared two scenarios: a base case that calculated the tobacco-attributable mortality, morbidity and economic costs with status quo tobacco control, and an intervention scenario that described changes in those same outcomes from fully implementing and enforcing a variety of proven, evidence-based tobacco control policies and interventions. Health consequences included the tobacco-attributable share of mortality and morbidity from 38 diseases. The healthcare expenditures and the socioeconomic costs from the prevalence of those conditions were combined to calculate the total losses due to tobacco. The monetised benefits of improvements in health resulting from tobacco control implementation were compared with costs of expanding tobacco control to assess returns on investment in each country. An institutional and context analysis assessed the political and economic dimensions of tobacco control in each context. RESULTS: We applied a rigorous yet flexible methodology in 36 countries over 5 years. The replicable model and framework may be used to inform development of tobacco control cases in countries worldwide. CONCLUSION: Investment cases constitute a tool that development partners and advocates have demanded in even greater numbers. The economic argument for tobacco control provided by this set of country-contextualised analyses can be a strong tool for policy change.

Equity implications of tobacco taxation: results from WHO FCTC investment cases.

BACKGROUND: Across time, geographies and country income levels, smoking prevalence is highest among people with lower incomes. Smoking causes further impoverishment of those on the lower end of the income spectrum through expenditure on tobacco and greater risk of ill health. METHODS: This paper summarises the results of investment case equity analyses for 19 countries, presenting the effects of increased taxation on smoking prevalence, health and expenditures. We disaggregate the number of people who smoke, smoking-attributable mortality and cigarette expenditures using smoking prevalence data by income quintile. A uniform 30% increase in price was applied across countries. We estimated the effects of the price increase on smoking prevalence, mortality and cigarette expenditures. RESULTS: In all but one country (Bhutan), a one-time 30% increase in price would reduce smoking prevalence by the largest percent among the poorest 20% of the population. All income groups in all countries would spend more on cigarettes with a 30% increase in price. However, the poorest 20% would pay an average of 12% of the additional money spent. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that health benefits from increases in price through taxation are pro-poor. Even in countries where smoking prevalence is higher among wealthier groups, increasing prices can still be pro-poor due to variable responsiveness to higher prices. The costs associated with higher smoking prevalence among the poor, together with often limited access to healthcare services and displaced spending on basic needs, result in health inequality and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

Advancing progress on tobacco control in low-income and middle-income countries through economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 80% of the world's 1.3 billion tobacco users live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where progress to address tobacco and its harms has been slow. The perception that tobacco control detracts from economic priorities has impeded progress. The Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is leading the FCTC 2030 project, which includes technical assistance to LMICs to analyse the economic costs of tobacco use and the benefits of tobacco control. METHODS: The Secretariat of the WHO FCTC, United Nations Development Programme and WHO supported 21 LMICs between 2017 and 2022 to complete national investment cases to guide country implementation of the WHO FCTC, with analytical support provided by RTI International. These country-level cases combine customised estimates of tobacco's economic impact with qualitative analysis of socio-political factors influencing tobacco control. This paper overviews the approach, observed tobacco control advancements and learnings from 21 countries: Armenia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Laos, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia and Zambia. RESULTS: Tobacco control advancements in line with investment case findings and recommendations have been observed in 17 of the 21 countries, and many have improved collaboration and policy coherence between health and economic stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco control must be seen as more than a health concern. Tobacco control leads to economic benefits and contributes to sustainable development. National investment cases can support country ownership and leadership to advance tobacco control.

Interpreting results, impacts and implications from WHO FCTC tobacco control investment cases in 21 low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control investment cases analyse the health and socioeconomic costs of tobacco use and the benefits that can be achieved from implementing measures outlined in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). They are intended to provide policy-makers and other stakeholders with country-level evidence that is relevant, useful and responsive to national priorities and policy context. METHODS: This paper synthesises findings from investment cases conducted in Armenia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Laos, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia and Zambia. We examine annual socioeconomic costs associated with tobacco use, focusing on smoking-related healthcare expenditures, the value of lives lost due to tobacco-related mortality and workplace productivity losses due to smoking. We explore potential benefits associated with WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures. RESULTS: Tobacco use results in average annual socioeconomic losses of US$95 million, US$610 million and US$1.6 billion among the low-income (n=3), lower-middle-income (n=12) and upper-middle-income countries (n=6) included in this analysis, respectively. These losses are equal to 1.1%, 1.8% and 2.9% of average annual national gross domestic product, respectively. Implementation and enforcement of WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures would lead to reduced tobacco use, fewer tobacco-related deaths and reduced socioeconomic losses. CONCLUSIONS: WHO FCTC tobacco control measures would provide a positive return on investment in every country analysed.

Community priorities for obesity prevention among low-income adults in Kuala Lumpur: a discrete choice experiment.

Non-communicable diseases and associated risk factors, such as obesity, are prevalent and increasing in Malaysia. To address this burden and the heightened vulnerability of low-income communities to these risk factors, the Better Health Programme Malaysia conducted a partial-profile discrete choice experiment (DCE) to inform the design of a community-based obesity-prevention programme. The DCE survey was conducted with community members (n = 1453) from three publicly supported low-cost, high-rise flat complexes in urban Kuala Lumpur. In the survey, community members were asked to choose between different sets of potential evidence-based interventions for obesity prevention. Their responses to these choice tasks were analysed to quantify preferences for these different health interventions using a random utility maximization model. Based on these results, we determined participants' relative prioritization of the different options. The most preferred interventions were those that reduced the price of fruit and vegetables; altered cooking practices at restaurants and food vendors to reduce salt, sugar and oil; and offered reward incentives for completing online educational activities. Community members did not prioritize several evidence-based interventions, including changes to product placement or product labelling, suggesting that these effective approaches may be less familiar or simply not preferred by respondents. The DCE enabled the clear articulation of these community priorities for evidence-based interventions that focus on the supply and promotion of affordable healthy foods within the local food environment, as well as community demand for healthier food options.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and the factors that increase NCD risk, such as obesity, are widespread and increasing in Malaysia. Low-income communities are particularly vulnerable to these risk factors. The Better Health Programme (BHP) Malaysia conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit community member preferences for evidence-based health promotion interventions to prevent obesity and NCDs. DCE is a research method used to identify participant preferences between different pre-determined options. The DCE survey was conducted with community members (n = 1453) from three publicly supported low-cost, high-rise flat complexes in urban Kuala Lumpur. In the survey, community members were asked to choose between different potential sets of interventions to alter the environment to prevent obesity. Based on their responses, we determined which interventions were most preferred in each community. The most preferred interventions were those that reduced the price of fruit and vegetables; altered cooking practices at restaurants and food vendors to reduce salt, sugar and oil; and offered rewards for completing online educational activities. The survey enabled the clear articulation of these community priorities for evidence-based interventions. These priorities were used to design the BHP Malaysia intervention programme.

The case for investment in tobacco control: lessons from four countries in the Americas.

Objective: To synthesize learnings from four national tobacco control investment cases conducted in the Americas (Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Suriname) under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) 2030 project, to describe results and how national health authorities have used the cases, and to discuss implications for the role of investment cases in advancing tobacco control. Methods: We draw on findings from four national investment cases that included 1) a cost-of-illness analysis calculating the health and economic burden of tobacco use, 2) a return-on-investment analysis of implementing key tobacco control demand reduction measures, and 3) a subsidiary analysis of one tobacco control topic of national interest (e.g., equity implications of cigarette taxation). Co-authors reported how cases have been used to advance tobacco control. Results: In Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Suriname, tobacco use causes social and economic losses equivalent to between 1.0 to 1.8 percent of GDP. Across these countries, implementing WHO FCTC demand reduction measures would save an average of 11 400 lives per year over the next 15 years. Benefits of the measures would far outweigh the costs of implementation and enforcement. Governments are using the cases to advance tobacco control, including to improve tobacco control laws and their enforcement, strengthen tobacco taxation, prioritize tobacco control planning, coordinate a multisectoral response, and engage political leaders. Conclusions: National investment cases can help to strengthen tobacco control in countries, including by increasing public and political support for implementation of the WHO FCTC and by informing effective planning, legislation, coordination and financing.

Building the health-economic case for scaling up the WHO-HEARTS hypertension control package in low- and middle-income countries.

Generally, hypertension control programs are cost-effective, including in low- and middle-income countries, but country governments and civil society are not likely to support hypertension control programs unless value is demonstrated in terms of public health benefits, budget impact, and value-for-investment for the individual country context. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) established a standard, simplified Global HEARTS approach to hypertension control, including preferred antihypertensive medicines and blood pressure measurement devices. The objective of this study is to report on health economic studies of HEARTS hypertension control package cost (especially medication costs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact and describe mathematical models designed to translate hypertension control program data into the optimal approach to hypertension care service delivery and financing, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Early results suggest that HEARTS hypertension control interventions are either cost-saving or cost-effective, that the HEARTS package is affordable at between US$ 18-44 per person treated per year, and that antihypertensive medicines could be priced low enough to reach a global standard of an average

En general, los programas de control de la hipertensión son costo-eficaces, incluso en los países de ingresos bajos y medios. Aun así, es poco probable que los gobiernos nacionales y la sociedad civil apoyen los programas de control de la hipertensión a menos que se demuestre su valor en términos de beneficios para la salud pública, impacto presupuestario y valor de la inversión para el contexto individual del país. La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) implementaron la iniciativa HEARTS, un enfoque mundial estandarizado y simplificado para el control de la hipertensión, que incluye los medicamentos antihipertensivos y los dispositivos de medición de la presión arterial de preferencia. El objetivo de este estudio es informar sobre los estudios en el ámbito de la economía de la salud relativos al costo de las medidas de control de la hipertensión previstas en HEARTS (especialmente, de los medicamentos), la costo-efectividad y el impacto presupuestario, así como describir los modelos matemáticos diseñados para traducir los datos de este programa en un enfoque óptimo para la prestación y el financiamiento de los servicios de atención de la hipertensión, especialmente en países de ingresos medianos y bajos. Los primeros resultados indican que las intervenciones de HEARTS para el control de la hipertensión son de bajo costo o costo-eficaces, que el conjunto de medidas HEARTS es asequible, a un precio que oscila entre US$ 18 y US$ 44 al año por paciente tratado, y que los medicamentos antihipertensivos podrían tener un precio lo suficientemente bajo como para alcanzar un estándar medio mundial de

Geralmente, os programas de controle de hipertensão são custo-efetivos, inclusive em países de baixa e média renda, mas os governos dos países e a sociedade civil provavelmente não apoiarão tais programas a menos que demonstrem valor em termos de benefícios à saúde pública, impacto orçamentário e retorno sobre o investimento no contexto individual do país. A Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) e a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS) criaram a Global HEARTS, uma abordagem padrão e simplificada ao controle da hipertensão arterial, que inclui medicamentos anti-hipertensivos preferidos e dispositivos para aferição da pressão arterial preferidos. O objetivo deste estudo é relatar os estudos de economia em saúde que analisaram o custo (especialmente custos de medicamentos), custo-benefício e impacto orçamentário do pacote HEARTS para controle da hipertensão e descrever modelos matemáticos elaborados para traduzir os dados do programa de controle de hipertensão em uma abordagem ideal para a prestação e financiamento de serviços de atenção às pessoas com hipertensão, especialmente em países de baixa e média renda. Os primeiros resultados sugerem que as intervenções HEARTS para controle da hipertensão são de baixo custo ou custo-efetivas, que o pacote HEARTS é acessível (custando de US$ 18 a 44 por pessoa tratada por ano) e que o preço dos medicamentos anti-hipertensivos poderia ser baixo o suficiente para atingir uma média global de

Economic effects of the double burden of malnutrition.

Observations from many countries indicate that multiple forms of malnutrition might coexist in a country, a household, and an individual. In this Series, the double burden of malnutrition (DBM) encompasses undernutrition in the form of stunting, and overweight and obesity. Health effects of the DBM include those associated with both undernutrition, such as impaired childhood development and greater susceptibility to infectious diseases, and overweight, especially in terms of increased risk of added visceral fat and increased risk of non-communicable diseases. These health effects have not been translated into economic costs for individuals and economies in the form of lost wages and productivity, as well as higher medical expenses. We summarise the existing approaches to modelling the economic effects of malnutrition and point out the weaknesses of these approaches for measuring economic losses from the DBM. Where population needs suggest that nutrition interventions take into account the DBM, economic evaluation can guide the choice of so-called double-duty interventions as an alternative to separate programming for stunting and overweight. We address the evidence gap with an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of an illustrative double-duty intervention that addresses both stunting and overweight in children aged 4 years and older by providing school meals with improved quality of diet. We assess the plausibility of our method and discuss how improved data and models can generate better estimates. Double-duty interventions could save money and be more efficient than single-duty interventions.

Cardiovascular, respiratory, and related disorders: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

Cardiovascular, respiratory, and related disorders (CVRDs) are the leading causes of adult death worldwide, and substantial inequalities in care of patients with CVRDs exist between countries of high income and countries of low and middle income. Based on current trends, the UN Sustainable Development Goal to reduce premature mortality due to CVRDs by a third by 2030 will be challenging for many countries of low and middle income. We did systematic literature reviews of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to identify priority interventions. We summarise the key findings and present a costed essential package of interventions to reduce risk of and manage CVRDs. On a population level, we recommend tobacco taxation, bans on trans fats, and compulsory reduction of salt in manufactured food products. We suggest primary health services be strengthened through the establishment of locally endorsed guidelines and ensured availability of essential medications. The policy interventions and health service delivery package we suggest could serve as the cornerstone for the management of CVRDs, and afford substantial financial risk protection for vulnerable households. We estimate that full implementation of the essential package would cost an additional US$21 per person in the average low-income country and $24 in the average lower-middle-income country. The essential package we describe could be a starting place for low-income and middle-income countries developing universal health coverage packages. Interventions could be rolled out as disease burden demands and budgets allow. Our outlined interventions provide a pathway for countries attempting to convert the UN Sustainable Development Goal commitments into tangible action.

Investing in non-communicable disease prevention and management to advance the Sustainable Development Goals.

Reduction of the non-communicable disease (NCD) burden is a global development imperative. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 includes target 3·4 to reduce premature NCD mortality by a third by 2030. Progress on SDG target 3·4 will have a central role in determining the success of at least nine SDGs. A strengthened effort across multiple sectors with effective economic tools, such as price policies and insurance, is necessary. NCDs are heavily clustered in people with low socioeconomic status and are an important cause of medical impoverishment. They thereby exacerbate economic inequities within societies. As such, NCDs are a barrier to achieving SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 4, SDG 5, and SDG 10. Productivity gains from preventing and managing NCDs will contribute to SDG 8. SDG 11 and SDG 12 offer clear opportunities to reduce the NCD burden and to create sustainable and healthy cities.

Action to address the household economic burden of non-communicable diseases.

The economic burden on households of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases, and diabetes, poses major challenges to global poverty alleviation efforts. For patients with NCDs, being uninsured is associated with 2-7-fold higher odds of catastrophic levels of out-of-pocket costs; however, the protection offered by health insurance is often incomplete. To enable coverage of the predictable and long-term costs of treatment, national programmes to extend financial protection should be based on schemes that entail compulsory enrolment or be financed through taxation. Priority should be given to eliminating financial barriers to the uptake of and adherence to interventions that are cost-effective and are designed to help the poor. In concert with programmes to strengthen national health systems and governance arrangements, comprehensive financial protection against the growing burden of NCDs is crucial in meeting the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.

Equity impacts of price policies to promote healthy behaviours.

Governments can use fiscal policies to regulate the prices and consumption of potentially unhealthy products. However, policies aimed at reducing consumption by increasing prices, for example by taxation, might impose an unfair financial burden on low-income households. We used data from household expenditure surveys to estimate patterns of expenditure on potentially unhealthy products by socioeconomic status, with a primary focus on low-income and middle-income countries. Price policies affect the consumption and expenditure of a larger number of high-income households than low-income households, and any resulting price increases tend to be financed disproportionately by high-income households. As a share of all household consumption, however, price increases are often a larger financial burden for low-income households than for high-income households, most consistently in the case of tobacco, depending on how much consumption decreases in response to increased prices. Large health benefits often accrue to individual low-income consumers because of their strong response to price changes. The potentially larger financial burden on low-income households created by taxation could be mitigated by a pro-poor use of the generated tax revenues.

Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

The World Bank is publishing nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3) between 2015 and 2018. Volume 9, Improving Health and Reducing Poverty, summarises the main messages from all the volumes and contains cross-cutting analyses. This Review draws on all nine volumes to convey conclusions. The analysis in DCP3 is built around 21 essential packages that were developed in the nine volumes. Each essential package addresses the concerns of a major professional community (eg, child health or surgery) and contains a mix of intersectoral policies and health-sector interventions. 71 intersectoral prevention policies were identified in total, 29 of which are priorities for early introduction. Interventions within the health sector were grouped onto five platforms (population based, community level, health centre, first-level hospital, and referral hospital). DCP3 defines a model concept of essential universal health coverage (EUHC) with 218 interventions that provides a starting point for country-specific analysis of priorities. Assuming steady-state implementation by 2030, EUHC in lower-middle-income countries would reduce premature deaths by an estimated 4·2 million per year. Estimated total costs prove substantial: about 9·1% of (current) gross national income (GNI) in low-income countries and 5·2% of GNI in lower-middle-income countries. Financing provision of continuing intervention against chronic conditions accounts for about half of estimated incremental costs. For lower-middle-income countries, the mortality reduction from implementing the EUHC can only reach about half the mortality reduction in non-communicable diseases called for by the Sustainable Development Goals. Full achievement will require increased investment or sustained intersectoral action, and actions by finance ministries to tax smoking and polluting emissions and to reduce or eliminate (often large) subsidies on fossil fuels appear of central importance. DCP3 is intended to be a model starting point for analyses at the country level, but country-specific cost structures, epidemiological needs, and national priorities will generally lead to definitions of EUHC that differ from country to country and from the model in this Review. DCP3 is particularly relevant as achievement of EUHC relies increasingly on greater domestic finance, with global developmental assistance in health focusing more on global public goods. In addition to assessing effects on mortality, DCP3 looked at outcomes of EUHC not encompassed by the disability-adjusted life-year metric and related cost-effectiveness analyses. The other objectives included financial protection (potentially better provided upstream by keeping people out of the hospital rather than downstream by paying their hospital bills for them), stillbirths averted, palliative care, contraception, and child physical and intellectual growth. The first 1000 days after conception are highly important for child development, but the next 7000 days are likewise important and often neglected.

A cost-benefit analysis of a National Hypertension Treatment Program in Bangladesh.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is one of the most common, yet manageable, risks for life-threatening events like stroke and myocardial infarction in the world. Bangladesh adults experience high rates of hypertension, with one in three women and one in five men meeting the condition's clinical definition. In the midst of an epidemiological transition, Bangladesh has the opportunity to slow the growth of hypertension prevalence through increased coverage of anti-hypertensive drugs for high-risk patients. METHODS: Using economic cost-benefit analysis and a societal perspective, we model the return on investment of providing blood-pressure lowering drugs to 60% of hypertensive adults by 2021 and 2030. We stratify the projections on both gender and income quintile. RESULTS: If the government of Bangladesh is proactive about hypertension management now, they could see a 12.7: 1 annual return on investment by 2021 and an 8.6: 1 annual return on investment by 2030. The return on investment is higher for providing medication for women than for men in both time horizons. CONCLUSION: Bangladesh has a unique opportunity to address hypertension now in order to prevent thousands of premature deaths and to accrue substantial net economic benefits within 6years.

Helmet regulation in Vietnam: impact on health, equity and medical impoverishment.

BACKGROUND: Vietnam's 2007 comprehensive motorcycle helmet policy increased helmet use from about 30% of riders to about 93%. We aimed to simulate the effect that this legislation might have on: (a) road traffic deaths and non-fatal injuries, (b) individuals' direct acute care injury treatment costs, (c) individuals' income losses from missed work and (d) individuals' protection against medical impoverishment. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used published secondary data from the literature to perform a retrospective extended cost-effectiveness analysis simulation study of the policy. Our model indicates that in the year following its introduction a helmet policy employing standard helmets likely prevented approximately 2200 deaths and 29 000 head injuries, saved individuals US$18 million in acute care costs and averted US$31 million in income losses. From a societal perspective, such a comprehensive helmet policy would have saved $11 000 per averted death or $830 per averted non-fatal injury. In terms of financial risk protection, traffic injury is so expensive to treat that any injury averted would necessarily entail a case of catastrophic health expenditure averted. CONCLUSIONS: The high costs associated with traffic injury suggest that helmet legislation can decrease the burden of out-of-pocket payments and reduced injuries decrease the need for access to and coverage for treatment, allowing the government and individuals to spend resources elsewhere. These findings suggest that comprehensive motorcycle helmet policies should be adopted by low-income and middle-income countries where motorcycles are pervasive yet helmet use is less common.