National spending on health by source for 184 countries between 2013 and 2040.

BACKGROUND: A general consensus exists that as a country develops economically, health spending per capita rises and the share of that spending that is prepaid through government or private mechanisms also rises. However, the speed and magnitude of these changes vary substantially across countries, even at similar levels of development. In this study, we use past trends and relationships to estimate future health spending, disaggregated by the source of those funds, to identify the financing trajectories that are likely to occur if current policies and trajectories evolve as expected. METHODS: We extracted data from WHO's Health Spending Observatory and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's Financing Global Health 2015 report. We converted these data to a common purchasing power-adjusted and inflation-adjusted currency. We used a series of ensemble models and observed empirical norms to estimate future government out-of-pocket private prepaid health spending and development assistance for health. We aggregated each country's estimates to generate total health spending from 2013 to 2040 for 184 countries. We compared these estimates with each other and internationally recognised benchmarks. FINDINGS: Global spending on health is expected to increase from US$7·83 trillion in 2013 to $18·28 (uncertainty interval 14·42-22·24) trillion in 2040 (in 2010 purchasing power parity-adjusted dollars). We expect per-capita health spending to increase annually by 2·7% (1·9-3·4) in high-income countries, 3·4% (2·4-4·2) in upper-middle-income countries, 3·0% (2·3-3·6) in lower-middle-income countries, and 2·4% (1·6-3·1) in low-income countries. Given the gaps in current health spending, these rates provide no evidence of increasing parity in health spending. In 1995 and 2015, low-income countries spent $0·03 for every dollar spent in high-income countries, even after adjusting for purchasing power, and the same is projected for 2040. Most importantly, health spending in many low-income countries is expected to remain low. Estimates suggest that, by 2040, only one (3%) of 34 low-income countries and 36 (37%) of 98 middle-income countries will reach the Chatham House goal of 5% of gross domestic product consisting of government health spending. INTERPRETATION: Despite remarkable health gains, past health financing trends and relationships suggest that many low-income and lower-middle-income countries will not meet internationally set health spending targets and that spending gaps between low-income and high-income countries are unlikely to narrow unless substantive policy interventions occur. Although gains in health system efficiency can be used to make progress, current trends suggest that meaningful increases in health system resources will require concerted action. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework's four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

Will the Quest for UHC be Derailed?

COVID-19 has shocked all countries' economic and health systems. The combined direct health impact and the current macro-fiscal picture present real and present risks to health financing that facilitate progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). This paper lays out the health financing mechanisms through which the UHC objectives of service coverage and financial protection may be impacted. Macroeconomic, fiscal capacity, and poverty indicators and trends are analyzed in conjunction with health financing indicators to present spending scenarios. The analysis shows that falling or reduced economic growth, combined with rising poverty, is likely to lead to a fall in service use and coverage, while any observed reductions in out-of-pocket spending have to be analyzed carefully to make sure they reflect improved financial protection and not just decreased utilization of services. Potential decreases in out-of-pocket spending will likely be drive by households' financial constraints that lead to less service use. In this way, it is critical to measure and monitor both the service coverage and financial protection indicators of UHC to have a complete picture of downstream effects. The analysis of historical data, including available evidence since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, lay the foundation for health financing-related policy options that can effectively safeguard UHC progress particularly for the poor and most vulnerable. These targeted policy options are based on documented evidence of effective country responses to previous crises as well as the overall evidence base around health financing for UHC.

From slippery slopes to steep hills: Contrasting landscapes of economic growth and public spending for health.

Identifying ways to increase public spending on health is critical for the achievement of universal health coverage. While policymakers and donors often look at available options for increasing public spending for health in the medium-term, examining trends and drivers of past growth can help countries elucidate important lessons and to anticipate changes in the future. This note analyzes trends in inflation-adjusted per capita public spending for health vis-à-vis economic growth within and across a sample of 150 countries over the 2000-2017 period. Since 2000, per capita public spending for health across low- and middle-income countries has more than doubled. Less than one-fifth of this increase, however, resulted from a higher priority for health in government budgets. The remainder was largely due to conducive macroeconomic conditions such as economic growth and increases in total public spending. Furthermore, across most countries, a single time trend does not adequately capture the evolution either of economic growth or of per capita public spending on health. Instability in growth rates is large for both indicators, revealing distinct episodic patterns.

Human resources for health: overcoming the crisis.

In this analysis of the global workforce, the Joint Learning Initiative-a consortium of more than 100 health leaders-proposes that mobilisation and strengthening of human resources for health, neglected yet critical, is central to combating health crises in some of the world's poorest countries and for building sustainable health systems in all countries. Nearly all countries are challenged by worker shortage, skill mix imbalance, maldistribution, negative work environment, and weak knowledge base. Especially in the poorest countries, the workforce is under assault by HIV/AIDS, out-migration, and inadequate investment. Effective country strategies should be backed by international reinforcement. Ultimately, the crisis in human resources is a shared problem requiring shared responsibility for cooperative action. Alliances for action are recommended to strengthen the performance of all existing actors while expanding space and energy for fresh actors.

Scaling up priority health interventions in Tanzania: the human resources challenge.

The international community has set ambitious goals (Millennium Development Goals) to improve health in developing countries by 2015. Effective and often cheap interventions exist to achieve these goals. In the mainland of Tanzania, one of the poorest countries of the world, we explored the human resources challenges of expanding the coverage of such priority interventions. We projected human resources for health (HRH) availability using a standard approach and estimated human resource requirements using a novel method (QTP) that produces estimates by task-specific skill categories and explicitly considers productivity. In this paper, we present the findings of the case study in Tanzania and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the QTP model. On the whole, the HRH challenge of expanding priority interventions in mainland Tanzania is daunting. HRH requirements exceed by far the estimates of HRH availability for 2015. The scaling up of the HIV/AIDS related intervention cluster, in particular the treatment and care of people living with HIV/AIDS, was the primary driver of increases in HRH requirements between the study's base year, 2002, and 2015, and thus of the overall imbalance. Scenario analysis points to three key areas for change in HRH policy and practice to reduce future imbalances: the increment-attrition balance, staff and service productivity, and the match between task-specific skill and occupational categories. However, even in an optimistic scenario, human resource availability will limit the extent to which priority interventions can be expanded in the mainland of Tanzania, and the government will not be able to avoid adjusting the globally set targets for service coverage and health outcomes to local realities and priorities.

Intervention complexity--a conceptual framework to inform priority-setting in health.

Health interventions vary substantially in the degree of effort required to implement them. To some extent this is apparent in their financial cost, but the nature and availability of non-financial resources is often of similar importance. In particular, human resource requirements are frequently a major constraint. We propose a conceptual framework for the analysis of interventions according to their degree of technical complexity; this complements the notion of institutional capacity in considering the feasibility of implementing an intervention. Interventions are categorized into four dimensions: characteristics of the basic intervention; characteristics of delivery; requirements on government capacity; and usage characteristics. The analysis of intervention complexity should lead to a better understanding of supply- and demand-side constraints to scaling up, indicate priorities for further research and development, and can point to potential areas for improvement of specific aspects of each intervention to close the gap between the complexity of an intervention and the capacity to implement it. The framework is illustrated using the examples of scaling up condom social marketing programmes, and the DOTS strategy for tuberculosis control in highly resource-constrained countries. The framework could be used as a tool for policy-makers, planners and programme managers when considering the expansion of existing projects or the introduction of new interventions. Intervention complexity thus complements the considerations of burden of disease, cost-effectiveness, affordability and political feasibility in health policy decision-making. Reducing the technical complexity of interventions will be crucial to meeting the health-related Millennium Development Goals.

Improving the health of the global poor.

We analyzed the technical basis for a major global program to reduce disease among the poor. Effective interventions exist against the few diseases which most account for excess mortality among the poor. Achieving high coverage of effective interventions requires a well-functioning health system, as well as overcoming a set of financial and nonfinancial constraints. The annual incremental cost would be between $40 billion and $52 billion by 2015 in 83 low-income and sub-Saharan African countries. Such a program is feasible and would avoid millions of child, maternal, and adult deaths annually in poor countries.