Investing in global health security: Estimating cost requirements for country-level capacity building.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted critical gaps in global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious diseases. To effectively allocate investments that address these gaps, it is first necessary to quantify the extent of the need, evaluate the types of resources and activities that require additional support, and engage the global community in ongoing assessment, planning, and implementation. Which investments are needed, where, to strengthen health security? This work aims to estimate costs to strengthen country-level health security, globally and identify associated cost drivers. The cost of building public health capacity is estimated based on investments needed, per country, to progress towards the benchmarks identified by the World Health Organization's Joint External Evaluation (JEE). For each country, costs are estimated to progress to a score of "demonstrated capacity" (4) across indicators. Over five years, an estimated US$124 billion is needed to reach "demonstrated capacity" on each indicator of the JEE for each of the 196 States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR). Personnel costs, including skilled health, public health, and animal health workers, are the single most influential cost driver, comprising 66% of total costs. These findings, and the data generated by this effort, provide cost estimates to inform ongoing health security financing discussions at the global level. The results highlight the significant need for sustainable financing mechanisms for both workforce development and ongoing support for the health and public health workforce.

Financial Assistance for Health Security: Effects of International Financial Assistance on Capacities for Preventing, Detecting, and Responding to Public Health Emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Health security funding is intended to improve capacities for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health emergencies. Recent years have witnessed substantial increases in the amounts of donor financial assistance to health security from countries, philanthropies, and other development partners. To date, no work has examined the effects of assistance on health security capacity development over time. This paper presents an analysis of the time-lagged effects of assistance for health security (AHS) on levels of capacity. METHODS: We collected publicly available health security assessment scores published between 2010 and 2019 and data relating to financial AHS. Using validated methods, we rescaled assessment scores on analogous scales to enable comparison and binned them in quartiles. We then used a distributed lag model (DLM) in a Bayesian ordinal regression framework to assess the effects of AHS on capacity development over time. RESULTS: Strong evidence exists for associations between financial assistance and select capacities on a variety of lagged time intervals. Financial assistance had positive effects on zoonotic disease capacities in the year it was disbursed, and positive effects on legislation, laboratory, workforce, and risk communication capacities one year after disbursal. Financial assistance had negative effects on laboratory and emergency response capacities two years after it was disbursed. Financial assistance did not have measurable effects on coordination, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), food safety, biosafety, surveillance, or response preparedness capacities over the timeframe considered. CONCLUSION: Financial AHS is associated with positive effects for several core health security capacities. However, for the majority of capacities, levels of funding were not significantly associated with capacity level, though we cannot fully exclude endogeneity. Future work should continue to investigate these relationships in different contexts and examine other factors that may contribute to capacity development.

Global Fund contributions to health security in ten countries, 2014-20: mapping synergies between vertical disease programmes and capacities for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a robust vertical global health programme. The extent to which vertical programmes financially support health security has not been investigated. We, therefore, endeavoured to quantify the extent to which the budgets of this vertical programme support health security. We believe this is a crucial area of work as the global community works to combine resources for COVID-19 response and future pandemic preparedness. METHODS: We examined budgets for work in Kenya, Uganda, Vietnam, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone from January, 2014 to December, 2020. These ten countries were selected because of the robustness of investments and the availability of data. Using the International Health Regulations Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool as a framework, we mapped budget line items to health security capacities. Two researchers independently reviewed each budget and mapped items to the JEE. Budgets were then jointly reviewed until a consensus was reached regarding if an item supported health security directly, indirectly, or not at all. The budgets for the study countries were inputted into a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and line items that mapped to JEE indicators were scaled up to their respective JEE capacity. Descriptive analyses were then done to determine the total amount of money budgeted for activities that support health security, how much was budgeted for each JEE capacity, and how much of the support was direct or indirect. FINDINGS: The research team reviewed 37 budgets. Budgets totalled US$6 927 284 966, and $2 562 063 054 (37·0%) of this mapped to JEE capacities. $1 330 942 712 (19·2%) mapped directly to JEE capacities and $1 231 120 342 (17·8%) mapped indirectly to JEE capacities. Laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and the deployment of medical countermeasures and personnel received the most overall budgetary support; laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and workforce development received the greatest amount of direct budgetary support. INTERPRETATION: Over one-third of the Global Fund's work also supports health security and the organisation has budgeted more than $2 500 000 000 for activities that support health security in ten countries since 2014. Although these funds were not budgeted specifically for health security purposes, recognising how vertical programmes can synergistically support other global health efforts has important implications for policy related to health systems strengthening. FUNDING: Resolve to Save Lives: An Initiative of Vital Strategies.

Rapid urban health security assessment tool: a new resource for evaluating local-level public health preparedness.

Urbanisation will be one of the defining demographic trends of the 21st century-creating unique opportunities for sustainable capacity development, as well as substantial risks and challenges for managing public health and health emergencies. Plans and policies for responding to public health emergencies are generally framed at higher levels of governance, but developing, improving and sustaining the capacities necessary for implementing these policies is a direct function of local-level authorities. Evaluating local-level public health capacities is an important process for identifying strengths and weaknesses that can impact the preparedness for, detection of and response to health security threats. However, while various evaluations and assessments exist for evaluating capacities at other levels, currently, there are no readily available health security assessments for the local-level. In this paper, we describe a tool-the Rapid Urban Health Security Assessment (RUHSA) Tool-that is based on a variety of other relevant assessments and guidance documents. Assessing capacities allow for local-level authorities to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their local health security systems, create multiyear action plans and prioritise opportunities for improving capacities, effectively engage with development partners to target resources effectively and develop compelling narratives and a legacy of leadership. While the RUHSA Tool was not designed to be used in the midst of a public health emergency, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it may also be adapted to inform a checklist for prioritising what capacities and activities a city needs to rapidly develop or to help focus requests for assistance.

Action-Based Costing for National Action Plans for Health Security: Accelerating Progress Toward the International Health Regulations (2005).

Multiple costing tools have been developed to understand the resources required to build and sustain implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR), including a detailed costing tool developed by WHO ("WHO Costing Tool") and 2 action-based costing tools, Georgetown University's IHR Costing Tool and CDC's Priority Actions Costing Tool (PACT). The relative performance of these tools is unknown. Nigeria costed its National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) using the WHO Costing Tool. We conducted a desktop review, using the other tools to compare the cost estimates generated using different costing approaches. Technical working groups developed activity plans and estimated component costs using the WHO Costing Tool during a weeklong workshop with approximately 60 participants from various ministries, departments, and federal agencies. We retrospectively applied the IHR Costing Tool and PACT to generate rapid cost estimates required to achieve a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) score of "demonstrated capacity" (level 4). The tools generated similar activities for implementation. Cost estimates varied based on the anticipated procurement and human resources requirements and by the level of implementation (eg, health facility-level versus local government area-level procurement). The desktop IHR Costing Tool and PACT tools required approximately 2 and 8 person-hours to complete, respectively. A strategic costing approach, wherein governments select from a menu of recommended and costed actions following the JEE to develop a NAPHS, could accelerate implementation of plans. Major cost drivers, including procurement and human resources, should be prioritized based on anticipated resource availability and countries' priorities.

Leveraging Partnerships to Maximize Global Health Security Improvements in Guinea, 2015-2019.

In response to the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak, a US congressional appropriation provided funds to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to support global health security capacity building in 17 partner countries, including Guinea. The 2014 funding enabled CDC to provide more than 300 deployments of personnel to Guinea during the Ebola response, establish a country office, and fund 11 implementing partners through cooperative agreements to support global health security engagement efforts in 4 core technical areas: workforce development, surveillance systems, laboratory systems, and emergency management. This article reflects on almost 4 years of collaboration between CDC and its implementing partners in Guinea during the Ebola outbreak response and the recovery period. We highlight examples of collaborative synergies between cooperative agreement partners and local Guinean partners and discuss the impact of these collaborations in strengthening the above 4 core capacities. Finally, we identify the key elements of the successful collaborations, including communication and information sharing as a core cooperative agreement activity, a flexible funding mechanism, and willingness to adapt to local needs. We hope these observations can serve as guidance for future endeavors seeking to establish strong and effective partnerships between government and nongovernment organizations providing technical and operational assistance.

Tracking the Flow of Funds in Global Health Security.

Countries, philanthropies, and private sector organizations have been actively investing in global health security around the world. However, despite the coordinated approach to funding within the Global Health Security Agenda, there is currently no well-established method to track the commitment and disbursal of funds for global health security from funders to recipients or to identify the activities supported by existing funding initiatives. To address this need, we developed the Global Health Security Tracking Dashboard. This interactive, publicly available, Web-based dashboard maps the flow of funds from funder to recipient and categorizes the target efforts of those funds, allowing users to identify patterns of influence and success in health security funding implementation. The dashboard provides an evidence-based approach for defining targets for future funding by identifying the areas in which funds have not yet been effectively allocated, showcasing successes, and providing a source of information to promote mutual accountability.

Local Decision Making for Implementing Social Distancing in Response to Outbreaks.

OBJECTIVES: Social distancing is the practice of restricting contact among persons to prevent the spread of infection. This study sought to (1) identify key features of preparedness and the primary concerns of local public health officials in deciding to implement social distancing measures and (2) determine whether any particular factor could explain the widespread variation among health departments in responses to past outbreaks. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of health departments in the United States in 2015 to understand factors influencing health departments' decision making when choosing whether to implement social distancing measures. We paired survey results with data on area population demographic characteristics and analyzed them with a focus on broad trends. RESULTS: Of 600 health departments contacted, 150 (25%) responded. Of these 150 health departments, 63 (42%) indicated that they had implemented social distancing in the past 10 years. Only 10 (7%) health departments had a line-item budget for isolation or quarantine. The most common concern about social distancing was public health impact (n = 62, 41%). Concerns about law, politics, finances, vulnerable populations, and sociocultural issues were each identified by 7% to 10% of health departments. We were unable to clearly predict which factors would influence these decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in the decision to implement social distancing are likely the result of differences in organizational authority and resources and in the primary concerns about implementing social distancing. Research and current social distancing guidelines for health departments should address these factors.

Analysis of results from the Joint External Evaluation: examining its strength and assessing for trends among participating countries.

BACKGROUND: The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) is part of the World Health Organization's (WHO) new process to help countries assess their ability to prevent, detect and respond to public health threats such as infectious disease outbreaks, as specified by the International Health Regulations (IHR). How countries are faring on these evaluations is not well known and neither is there any previous assessment of the performance characteristics of the JEE process itself. METHODS: We obtained JEE data for 48 indicators collectively across 19 technical areas of preparedness for 55 countries. The indicators are scored on a 1 to 5 scale with 4 indicating demonstrated capacity. We created a standardized JEE index score representing cumulative performance across indicators using principal components analysis. We examined the state of performance across all indicators and then examined the relationship between this index score and select demographic and health variables to better understand potential drivers of performance. RESULTS: Among our study cohort, the median performance on 43 of the 48 (89.6%) indicators was less than 4, suggesting that countries were failing to meet demonstrated capacity on these measures. The two weakest indicators were related to antimicrobial resistance (median score = 1.0, interquartile range = 1.0-2.0) and biosecurity response (median score = 2.0, interquartile range = 2.0-3.0). JEE index scores correlated with various metrics of health outcomes (life expectancy, under-five year mortality rate, disability-adjusted life years lost to communicable diseases) and with standard measures of social and economic development that enable public health system performance in the total sample, but in stratified analyses, these relationships were much weaker in the AFRO region. CONCLUSIONS: We find large variations in JEE scores among countries and WHO regions with many nations still unprepared for the next disease outbreak with pandemic potential The strong correlations between JEE performance and metrics of both health outcomes and health systems' performance suggests that the JEE is likely accurately measuring the strength of IHR-specific, public health capabilities.

Strengthening health security: an intuitive and user-friendly tool to estimate country-level costs.

Member States of the WHO working to build capacity under the International Health Regulations (IHR) are advised to develop prioritised, costed plans to implement improvements based on the results of voluntary external assessments. Defining the costs associated with capacity building under the IHR, however, has challenged nations, funders and supporting organisations. Most current efforts to develop costed national action plans involve long-term engagements that may take weeks or months to complete. While these efforts have value in and of themselves, there is an urgent need for a rapid-use tool to provide cost estimates regardless of the level of expertise of the personnel assigned to the task. In this paper, we describe a tool that can-in a matter of hours-provide country-level cost estimates for capacity building under the IHR. This paper also describes how the tool can be used in countries, as well as the challenges inherent in any costing process.

Decision support for evidence-based integration of disease control: A proof of concept for malaria and schistosomiasis.

AUTHOR SUMMARY: Designing and implementing effective programs for infectious disease control requires complex decision-making, informed by an understanding of the diseases, the types of disease interventions and control measures available, and the disease-relevant characteristics of the local community. Though disease modeling frameworks have been developed to address these questions and support decision-making, the complexity of current models presents a significant barrier to on-the-ground end users. The picture is further complicated when considering approaches for integration of different disease control programs, where co-infection dynamics, treatment interactions, and other variables must also be taken into account. Here, we describe the development of an application available on the internet with a simple user interface, to support on-the-ground decision-making for integrating disease control, given local conditions and practical constraints. The model upon which the tool is built provides predictive analysis for the effectiveness of integration of schistosomiasis and malaria control, two diseases with extensive geographical and epidemiological overlap. This proof-of-concept method and tool demonstrate significant progress in effectively translating the best available scientific models to support pragmatic decision-making on the ground, with the potential to significantly increase the impact and cost-effectiveness of disease control.

Funding Public Health Emergency Preparedness in the United States.

The historical precedents that support state and local leadership in preparedness for and response to disasters are in many ways at odds with the technical demands of preparedness and response for incidents affecting public health. New and revised laws and regulations, executive orders, policies, strategies, and plans developed in response to biological threats since 2001 address the role of the federal government in the response to public health emergencies. However, financial mechanisms for disaster response-especially those that wait for gubernatorial request before federal assistance can be provided-do not align with the need to prevent the spread of infectious agents or efficiently reduce the impact on public health. We review key US policies and funding mechanisms relevant to public health emergencies and clarify how policies, regulations, and resources affect coordinated responses.

Costing framework for International Health Regulations (2005).

The revised International Health Regulations (IHR [2005]) conferred new responsibilities on member states of the World Health Organization, requiring them to develop core capacities to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health emergencies. Many countries have not yet developed these capacities, and poor understanding of the associated costs have created a barrier to effectively marshaling assistance. To help national and international decision makers understand the inputs and associated costs of implementing the IHR (2005), we developed an IHR implementation strategy to serve as a framework for making preliminary estimates of fixed and operating costs associated with developing and sustaining IHR core capacities across an entire public health system. This tool lays the groundwork for modeling the costs of strengthening public health systems from the central to the peripheral level of an integrated health system, a key step in helping national health authorities define necessary actions and investments required for IHR compliance.

Defining health diplomacy: changing demands in the era of globalization.

CONTEXT: Accelerated globalization has produced obvious changes in diplomatic purposes and practices. Health issues have become increasingly preeminent in the evolving global diplomacy agenda. More leaders in academia and policy are thinking about how to structure and utilize diplomacy in pursuit of global health goals. METHODS: In this article, we describe the context, practice, and components of global health diplomacy, as applied operationally. We examine the foundations of various approaches to global health diplomacy, along with their implications for the policies shaping the international public health and foreign policy environments. Based on these observations, we propose a taxonomy for the subdiscipline. FINDINGS: Expanding demands on global health diplomacy require a delicate combination of technical expertise, legal knowledge, and diplomatic skills that have not been systematically cultivated among either foreign service or global health professionals. Nonetheless, high expectations that global health initiatives will achieve development and diplomatic goals beyond the immediate technical objectives may be thwarted by this gap. CONCLUSIONS: The deepening links between health and foreign policy require both the diplomatic and global health communities to reexamine the skills, comprehension, and resources necessary to achieve their mutual objectives.