Dynamics of combatting market-driven epidemics: Insights from U.S. reduction of cigarette, sugar, and prescription opioid consumption.

Misuse and overconsumption of certain consumer products have become major global risk factors for premature deaths, with their total costs in trillions of dollars. Progress in reducing such deaths has been slow and difficult. To address this challenge, this review introduces the definition of market-driven epidemics (MDEs), which arise when companies aggressively market products with proven harms, deny these harms, and resist mitigation efforts. MDEs are a specific within the broader landscape of commercial determinants of health. We selected three illustrative MDE products reflecting different consumer experiences: cigarettes (nicotine delivery product), sugar (food product), and prescription opioids (medical product). Each met the MDE case definition with proven adverse health impacts, well-documented histories, longitudinal product consumption and health impact data, and sustained reduction in product consumption. Based on these epidemics, we describe five MDE phases: market expansion, evidence of harm, corporate resistance, mitigation, and market adaptation. From the peak of consumption to the most recent data, U.S. cigarette sales fell by 82%, sugar consumption by 15%, and prescription opioid prescriptions by 62%. For each, the consumption tipping point occurred when compelling evidence of harm, professional alarm, and an authoritative public health voice and/or public mobilization overcame corporate marketing and resistance efforts. The gap between suspicion of harm and the consumption tipping point ranged from one to five decades-much of which was attributable to the time required to generate sufficient evidence of harm. Market adaptation to the reduced consumption of target products had both negative and positive impacts. To our knowledge, this is the first comparative analysis of three successful efforts to change the product consumption patterns and the associated adverse health impacts of these products. The MDE epidemiological approach of shortening the latent time to effective mitigation provides a new method to reduce the impacts of harmful products.

Mobilizing Domestic Funds for the HIV/AIDS Response in Nigeria: Estimating the Potential Contribution of the National Health Insurance Scheme.

BACKGROUND: Amid the dwindling donor support for HIV in Nigeria, there is an urgent need for additional domestic HIV funding. This study estimates the required financial resources for people living with HIV (PLHIV) and the potential magnitude of domestic resources for HIV through the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) and by prioritizing HIV within the health budget. METHODS: We estimated the resource needs for providing antiretroviral therapy (ART) to adults, children, and pregnant women living with HIV under 3 scenarios: current coverage rates, coverage rates based on historical trends, and a rapid scale-up situation. We conducted a fiscal space analysis to estimate the potential contribution from macroeconomic growth, the NHIS, and prioritizing HIV within the health budget from 2020 to 2025. RESULTS: At current coverage rates, the annual treatment costs for adults would range between US$ 505 million in 2020 to US$ 655 million in 2025; for children, it ranges from US$ 33.5 million in 2020 to US$ 32 million in 2025. The annual costs of providing PMTCT at current coverage rates range from US$ 65 million in 2020 to US$ 72 million in 2025. An additional US$ 319 million could potentially be generated between 2020 and 2025 through the NHIS for HIV. Prioritizing HIV within the health budget can generate an additional US$ 686 million. CONCLUSION: Substantial domestic funds can be mobilized by these means to sustain the HIV response. However, because this additional funding may not be sufficient to cover all PLHIV, a phased approach, initially prioritizing certain populations such as children or pregnant women, is recommended.

Why did Ghana's national health insurance capitation payment model fall off the policy agenda? A regional level policy analysis.

Provider payment reforms, such as capitation, are very contentious. Such reforms can drop off the policy agenda due to political and contextual resistance. Using the Shiffman and Smith (Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet 2007; 370 1370-9) framework, this study explains why Ghana's National Health Insurance capitation payment policy that rose onto the policy agenda in 2012, dropped off the agenda in 2017 during its pilot implementation in the Ashanti region. We conducted a retrospective qualitative policy analysis by collecting field data in December 2019 in the Ashanti region through 18 interviews with regional and district level policy actors and four focus group discussions with community-level policy beneficiaries. The thematically analysed field data were triangulated with media reports on the policy. We discovered that technically framing capitation as a cost-containment strategy with less attention on portraying its health benefits resulted in a politically negative reframing of the policy as a strategy to punish fraudulent providers and opposition party electorates. At the level of policy actors, pilot implementation was constrained by a regional level anti-policy community, weak civil society mobilization and low trust in the then political leadership. Anti-policy campaigners drew on highly contentious and poorly implemented characteristics of the policy to demand cancellation of the policy. A change in government in 2017 created the needed political window for the suspension of the policy. While it was technically justified to pilot the policy in the stronghold of the main opposition party, this decision carried political risks. Other low- and middle-income countries considering capitation reforms should note that piloting potentially controversial policies such as capitation within a politically sensitive location can attract unanticipated partisan political interest in the policy. Such partisan interest can potentially lead to a decline in political attention for the policy in the event of a change in government.

Invirtiendo en salud: el argumento económico. Informe del Foro sobre Inversión en Salud de la Cumbre Mundial sobre Innovación para la Salud 2016 / Investing in health: the economic case. Report of the WISH Investing in Health Forum 2016

Resumen: Los gobiernos de los países en desarrollo y los organismos de ayuda internacional enfrentan decisiones difíciles en cuanto a la mejor manera de asignar sus recursos limitados. Las inversiones en distintos sectores -incluyendo educación, agua y saneamiento, transporte y salud- pueden generar beneficios sociales y económicos. Este informe se enfoca específicamente en el sector salud. Presenta evidencia contundente sobre el valor de ampliar las inversiones en salud. El argumento económico para incrementar estas inversiones en salud nunca ha sido más sólido. Con el progreso que se ha logrado en la reducción de la mortalidad materna e infantil y de las muertes por enfermedades infecciosas, es esencial que los responsables de la formulación de políticas no se vuelvan complacientes. Estos logros se revertirán rápidamente sin inversiones sostenidas en salud. Será necesario ampliar las inversiones para hacer frente a la carga generada por las enfermedades no transmisibles (ENT) emergentes y para alcanzar la cobertura universal de salud (CUS). El valor de la inversión en salud va mucho más allá de su rendimiento reflejado en la prosperidad económica a través del producto interno bruto (PIB). Las personas dan un gran valor monetario a los años de vida adicionales que las inversiones en salud pueden proporcionar -un valor inherente a permanecer con vida por más tiempo, que no tiene que ver con la productividad. Los encargados del diseño de políticas deben esforzarse más para asegurar que el gasto en salud refleje las prioridades de la gente. Para asegurar que los servicios sean accesibles para todos, la función del gobierno en el financiamiento de la salud es muy clara. Sin financiamiento público, habrá quienes no podrán costear los servicios que requieren y se verán forzados a elegir la enfermedad -o incluso la muerte- y la ruina económica, una elección devastadora que ya está llevando a 150 millones de personas a la pobreza cada año. En países de bajos ingresos (PBI) y países de ingresos medios (PIM), el financiamiento público debería ser utilizado para alcanzar la cobertura universal con un paquete de intervenciones altamente costo-efectivas (mejores inversiones u opciones). Los gobiernos que no protejan la salud y el patrimonio de su pueblo de esta manera serán incapaces de obtener los beneficios de una prosperidad económica y un crecimiento a largo plazo. El financiamiento público tiene el beneficio de ser más eficiente y capaz de controlar los costos que el financiamiento privado, y es la única manera sostenible de lograr una CUS. Además, la gente atribuye un alto valor económico a la protección que le provee el financiamiento público contra los riesgos financieros. Este informe aborda tres preguntas clave: 1) ¿Cuál es el fundamento económico para invertir en salud?; 2) ¿cuál es la mejor manera de financiar la salud?, y 3) ¿cuáles son las intervenciones que deben tener prioridad?

Abstract: Developing country governments and aid agencies face difficult decisions on how best to allocate their finite resources. Investments in many different sectors -including education, water and sanitation, transportation, and health- can all reap social and economic benefits. This report focuses specifically on the health sector. It presents compelling evidence of the value of scaling-up health investments. The economic case for increasing these investments in health has never been stronger. Having made progress in reducing maternal and child mortality, and deaths from infectious diseases, it is essential that policymakers do not become complacent. These gains will be quickly reversed without sustained health investments. Scaled-up investments will be needed to tackle the emerging non-communicable disease (NCD) burden and to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). The value of investment in health far beyond its performance is reflected in economic prosperity through gross domestic product (GDP). People put a high monetary value on the additional years of life that health investments can bring -an inherent value to being alive for longer, unrelated to productivity. Policymakers need to do more to ensure that spending on health reflects people's priorities. To make sure services are accessible to all, governments have a clear role to play in financing health. Without public financing, there will be some who cannot afford the care they need, and they will be forced to choose sickness -perhaps even death- and financial ruin; a devastating choice that already pushes 150 million people into poverty every year. In low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs), public financing should be used to achieve universal coverage with a package of highly cost-effective interventions ('best buys'). Governments failing to protect the health and wealth of their people in this way will be unable to reap the benefits of long-term economic prosperity and growth. Public financing has the benefit of being more efficient and better at controlling costs than private financing and is the only sustainable way to reach UHC. In addition, people put a high economic value on the protection against financial risk that public financing provides. This report addresses three key questions: 1) What is the economic rationale for investing in health?; 2) what is the best way to finance health?, and 3) which interventions should be prioritized?

Financial contributions to global surgery: an analysis of 160 international charitable organizations.

BACKGROUND: The non-profit and volunteer sector has made notable contributions to delivering surgical services in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). As an estimated 55 % of surgical care delivered in some LMICs is via charitable organizations; the financial contributions of this sector provides valuable insight into understanding financing priorities in global surgery. METHODS: Databases of registered charitable organizations in five high-income nations (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were searched to identify organizations committed exclusively to surgery in LMICs and their financial data. For each organization, we categorized the surgical specialty and calculated revenues and expenditures. All foreign currency was converted to U.S. dollars based on historical yearly average conversion rates. All dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: One hundred sixty organizations representing 15 specialties were identified. Adjusting for inflation, in 2014 U.S. dollars (US$), total aggregated revenue over the years 2008-2013 was $3·4 billion and total aggregated expenses were $3·1 billion. Twenty-eight ophthalmology organizations accounted for 45 % of revenue and 49 % of expenses. Fifteen cleft lip/palate organizations totaled 26 % of both revenue and expenses. The remaining 117 organizations, representing a variety of specialties, accounted for 29 % of revenue and 25 % of expenses. In comparison, from 2008 to 2013, charitable organizations provided nearly $27 billion for global health, meaning an estimated 11.5 % went towards surgery. CONCLUSION: Charitable organizations that exclusively provide surgery in LMICs primarily focus on elective surgeries, which cover many subspecialties, and often fill deep gaps in care. The largest funding flows are directed at ophthalmology, followed by cleft lip and palate surgery. Despite the number of contributing organizations, there is a clear need for improvement and increased transparency in tracking of funds to global surgery via charitable organizations.

Prioritizing Surgical Care on National Health Agendas: A Qualitative Case Study of Papua New Guinea, Uganda, and Sierra Leone.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the social and political factors that influence priority setting for different health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet these factors are integral to understanding how national health agendas are established. We investigated factors that facilitate or prevent surgical care from being prioritized in LMICs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook country case studies in Papua New Guinea, Uganda, and Sierra Leone, using a qualitative process-tracing method. We conducted 74 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in health agenda setting and surgical care in these countries. Interviews were triangulated with published academic literature, country reports, national health plans, and policies. Data were analyzed using a conceptual framework based on four components (actor power, ideas, political contexts, issue characteristics) to assess national factors influencing priority for surgery. Political priority for surgical care in the three countries varies. Priority was highest in Papua New Guinea, where surgical care is firmly embedded within national health plans and receives significant domestic and international resources, and much lower in Uganda and Sierra Leone. Factors influencing whether surgical care was prioritized were the degree of sustained and effective domestic advocacy by the local surgical community, the national political and economic environment in which health policy setting occurs, and the influence of international actors, particularly donors, on national agenda setting. The results from Papua New Guinea show that a strong surgical community can generate priority from the ground up, even where other factors are unfavorable. CONCLUSIONS: National health agenda setting is a complex social and political process. To embed surgical care within national health policy, sustained advocacy efforts, effective framing of the problem and solutions, and country-specific data are required. Political, technical, and financial support from regional and international partners is also important.

Global Surgery 2030: a roadmap for high income country actors.

The Millennium Development Goals have ended and the Sustainable Development Goals have begun, marking a shift in the global health landscape. The frame of reference has changed from a focus on 8 development priorities to an expansive set of 17 interrelated goals intended to improve the well-being of all people. In this time of change, several groups, including the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, have brought a critical problem to the fore: 5 billion people lack access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. The magnitude of this problem and the world's new focus on strengthening health systems mandate reimagined roles for and renewed commitments from high income country actors in global surgery. To discuss the way forward, on 6 May 2015, the Commission held its North American launch event in Boston, Massachusetts. Panels of experts outlined the current state of knowledge and agreed on the roles of surgical colleges and academic medical centres; trainees and training programmes; academia; global health funders; the biomedical devices industry, and news media and advocacy organisations in building sustainable, resilient surgical systems. This paper summarises these discussions and serves as a consensus statement providing practical advice to these groups. It traces a common policy agenda between major actors and provides a roadmap for maximising benefit to surgical patients worldwide. To close the access gap by 2030, individuals and organisations must work collectively, interprofessionally and globally. High income country actors must abandon colonial narratives and work alongside low and middle income country partners to build the surgical systems of the future.

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.

[Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation]. / Salud global 2035: un mundo convergiendo en el lapso de una generación.

Prompted by the 20th anniversary of the 1993 World Development Report, a Lancet Commission revisited the case for investment in health and developed a new investment framework to achieve dramatic health gains by 2035. The Commission's report has four key messages, each accompanied by opportunities for action by national governments of low-income and middle-income countries and by the international community. First, there is an enormous economic payoff from investing in health. The impressive returns make a strong case for both increased domestic financing of health and for allocating a higher proportion of official development assistance to development of health. Second, modeling by the Commission found that a "grand convergence" in health is achievable by 2035-that is, a reduction in infectious, maternal, and child mortality down to universally low levels. Convergence would require aggressive scale up of existing and new health tools, and it could mostly be financed from the expected economic growth of low- and middle-income countries. The international community can best support convergence by funding the development and delivery of new health technologies and by curbing antibiotic resistance. Third, fiscal policies -such as taxation of tobacco and alcohol- are a powerful and underused lever that governments can use to curb non-communicable diseases and injuries while also raising revenue for health. International action on NCDs and injuries should focus on providing technical assistance on fiscal policies, regional cooperation on tobacco, and funding policy and implementation research on scaling-up of interventions to tackle these conditions. Fourth, progressive universalism, a pathway to universal health coverage (UHC) that includes the poor from the outset, is an efficient way to achieve health and financial risk protection. For national governments, progressive universalism would yield high health gains per dollar spent and poor people would gain the most in terms of health and financial protection. The international community can best support countries to implement progressive UHC by financing policy and implementation research, such as on the mechanics of designing and implementing evolution of the benefits package as the resource envelope for public finance grows.

Salud global 2035: un mundo convergiendo en el lapso de una generación / Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation

Con motivo del 20º aniversario del Informe sobre el Desarrollo Mundial 1993, una Comisión de la revista The Lancet reconsideró el argumento a favor de la inversión en salud y desarrolló un nuevo marco de inversión para lograr mejoras dramáticas en materia de salud para el año 2035. El informe de la Comisión contiene cuatro mensajes clave, cada uno acompañado de oportunidades para los gobiernos nacionales de países de ingresos bajos y medios y para la comunidad internacional. En primer lugar, invertir en salud acarrea enormes rendimientos económicos. Las impresionantes ganancias son un fuerte argumento a favor de un aumento en el financiamiento nacional de la salud y de asignar una mayor proporción de la asistencia oficial al desarrollo de la salud. En segundo lugar, en el modelo creado por la Comisión se encontró que es posible lograr para el año 2035 una "gran convergencia" en salud, consistente en la reducción de las tasas de mortalidad materna, infantil y por infecciones a niveles universalmente bajos. Tal convergencia requeriría la ampliación de las herramientas de salud existentes y un incremento agresivo de nuevas herramientas, y podría ser financiada en su mayor parte con recursos derivados del crecimiento económico esperado de los países de ingresos bajos y medios. La mejor manera en que la comunidad internacional puede apoyar la convergencia es financiando el desarrollo y suministro de nuevas tecnologías de salud, y frenando la resistencia a los antibióticos. En tercer lugar, las políticas fiscales -tales como los impuestos al tabaco y al alcohol- son una palanca poderosa y subutilizada que los gobiernos pueden emplear para detener el avance de las enfermedades no transmisibles (ENT) y las lesiones, a la vez que elevan los ingresos públicos para la salud. La acción internacional sobre las ENT y lesiones debería enfocarse en proporcionar asistencia técnica sobre políticas fiscales, en cooperación regional para el combate al tabaquismo y en financiar investigación sobre políticas e implementación para ampliar las intervenciones que enfrenten estos problemas. En cuarto lugar, la universalización progresiva -una vía hacia la cobertura universal de salud (CUS) que incluya desde el comienzo a los pobres- es una manera eficiente de lograr la protección a la salud contra riesgos financieros. Para los gobiernos nacionales, la universalización progresiva produciría elevadas ganancias en salud por cada dólar que se gaste en ésta, y los pobres serían quienes más ganarían en términos tanto de salud como de protección financiera. La mejor manera en que la comunidad internacional puede brindar apoyo a los países para implementar una CUS progresiva es financiando la investigación sobre políticas e implementación, por ejemplo, sobre la mecánica del diseño e instrumentación de la evolución del paquete de beneficios conforme crezca el presupuesto para las finanzas públicas.

Prompted by the 20th anniversary of the 1993 World Development Report, a Lancet Commission revisited the case for investment in health and developed a new investment framework to achieve dramatic health gains by 2035. The Commission's report has four key messages, each accompanied by opportunities for action by national governments of low-income and middle-income countries and by the international community. First, there is an enormous economic payoff from investing in health. The impressive returns make a strong case for both increased domestic financing of health and for allocating a higher proportion of official development assistance to development of health. Second, modeling by the Commission found that a "grand convergence" in health is achievable by 2035-that is, a reduction in infectious, maternal, and child mortality down to universally low levels. Convergence would require aggressive scale up of existing and new health tools, and it could mostly be financed from the expected economic growth of low- and middle-income countries. The international community can best support convergence by funding the development and delivery of new health technologies and by curbing antibiotic resistance. Third, fiscal policies -such as taxation of tobacco and alcohol- are a powerful and underused lever that governments can use to curb non-communicable diseases and injuries while also raising revenue for health. International action on NCDs and injuries should focus on providing technical assistance on fiscal policies, regional cooperation on tobacco, and funding policy and implementation research on scaling-up of interventions to tackle these conditions. Fourth, progressive universalism, a pathway to universal health coverage (UHC) that includes the poor from the outset, is an efficient way to achieve health and financial risk protection. For national governments, progressive universalism would yield high health gains per dollar spent and poor people would gain the most in terms of health and financial protection. The international community can best support countries to implement progressive UHC by financing policy and implementation research, such as on the mechanics of designing and implementing evolution of the benefits package as the resource envelope for public finance grows.

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.

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.

Generation of national political priority for surgery: a qualitative case study of three low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Surgical conditions exert a major health burden in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet surgery remains a low priority on national health agendas. Little is known about the national factors that influence whether surgery is prioritised in LMICs. We investigated factors that could facilitate or prevent surgery from being a health priority in three LMICs. METHODS: We undertook three country case studies in Papua New Guinea, Uganda, and Sierra Leone, using a qualitative process-tracing method. In total 72 semi-structured interviews were conducted between March and June, 2014, in the three countries. Interviews were designed to query informants' attitudes, values, and beliefs about how and why different health issues, including surgical care, were prioritised within their country. Informants were providers, policy makers, civil society, funders, and other stakeholders involved with health agenda setting and surgical care. Interviews were analysed with Dedoose, a qualitative data analysis tool. Themes were organised into a conceptual framework adapted from Shiffman and Smith to assess the factors that affected whether surgery was prioritised. FINDINGS: In all three countries, effective political and surgical leadership, access to country-specific surgical disease indicators, and higher domestic health expenditures are facilitating factors that promote surgical care on national health agendas. Competing health and policy interests and poor framing of the need for surgery prevent the issue from receiving more attention. In Papua New Guinea, surgical care is a moderate-to-high health priority. Surgical care is embedded in the national health plan and there are influential leaders with surgical interests. Surgical care is a low-to-moderate health priority in Uganda. Ineffectively used policy windows and little national data on surgical disease have impeded efforts to increase priority for surgery. Surgical care remains a low health priority in Sierra Leone. Resource constraints and competing health priorities, such as infectious disease challenges, prevent surgery from receiving attention. INTERPRETATION: Priority for surgery on national health agendas varies across LMICs. Increasing dialogue between surgical providers and political leaders can increase the power of actors who advocate for surgical care. Greater emphasis on the importance of surgical care in achieving national health goals can strengthen internal and external framing of the issue. Growing political recognition of non-communicable diseases provides a favourable political context to increase attention for surgery. Lastly, increasing internally generated issue characteristics, such as improved tracking of national surgical indicators, could increase the priority given to surgery within LMICs. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, King's Health Partners/King's College London, and Lund University.

Timing and cost of scaling up surgical services in low-income and middle-income countries from 2012 to 2030: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Given the large burden of surgical conditions and the crosscutting nature of surgery, scale-up of basic surgical services is crucial to health-system strengthening. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed that, to meet populations' needs, countries should achieve 5000 major operations per 100 000 population per year. We modelled the possible scale-up of surgical services in 88 low-income and middle-income countries with a population greater than 1 million from 2012 to 2030 at various rates and quantified the associated costs. METHODS: Major surgery includes any intervention within an operating room involving tissue manipulation and anaesthesia. We used estimates for the number of major operations achieved per country annually and the number of operating rooms per region, and data from Mongolia and Mexico for trends in the number of operations. Unit costs included a cost per operation, proxied by caesarean section cost estimates; hospital construction data were used to estimate cost per operating room construction. We determined the year by which each country would achieve the Commission's target. We modelled three scenarios for the scale-up rate: actual rates (5·1% per year) and two "aspirational" rates, the rates achieved by Mongolia (8·9% annual) and Mexico (22·5% annual). We subsequently estimated the associated costs. FINDINGS: About half of the 88 countries would achieve the target by 2030 at actual rates of improvements, with up to two-thirds if the rate were increased to Mongolian rates. We estimate the total costs of achieving scale-up at US$300-420 billion (95% UI 190-600 billion) over 2012-30, which represents 4-8% of total annual health expenditures among low-income and lower middle-income countries and 1% among upper middle-income countries. INTERPRETATION: Scale-up of surgical services will not reach the target of 5000 operations per 100 000 by 2030 in about half of low-income and middle-income countries without increased funding, which countries and the international community must seek to achieve expansion of quality surgical services. FUNDING: None.