Sector-wide or disease-specific? Implications of trends in development assistance for health for the SDG era.

The record of the Millennium Development Goals broadly reflects the trade-offs of disease-specific financing: substantial progress in particular areas, facilitated by time-bound targets that are easy to measure and communicate, which shifted attention and resources away from other areas, masked inequalities and exacerbated fragmentation. In many ways, the Sustainable Development Goals reflect a profound shift towards a more holistic, system-wide approach. To inform responses to this shift, this article builds upon existing work on aggregate trends in donor financing, bringing together what have largely been disparate analyses of sector-wide and disease-specific financing approaches. Looking across the last 26 years, the article examines how international donors have allocated development assistance for health (DAH) between these two approaches and how attempts to bridge them have fared in practice. Since 1990, DAH has overwhelmingly favoured disease-specific earmarks over health sector support, with the latter peaking in 1998. Attempts to integrate system strengthening elements into disease-specific funding mechanisms have varied by disease, and more integrated funding platforms have failed to gain traction. Health sector support largely remains an unfulfilled promise: proportionately low amounts (albeit absolute increases) which have been inconsistently allocated, and the overall approach inconsistently applied in practice. Thus, the expansive orientation of the Sustainable Development Goals runs counter to trends over the last several decades. Financing proposals and efforts to adapt global health institutions must acknowledge and account for the persistent challenges in the financing and implementation of integrated, cross-sector policies. National and subnational experimentation may offer alternatives within and beyond the health sector.

From polarisation to practice: puzzles and insights on integrated approaches from public health professionals.

Much of the debate in the global health literature about vertical and horizontal programmatic approaches, between narrowly targeted interventions and those providing broader system-wide support, has taken place at the global level. Based on a comparative case study of international donors in the health sector in Peru that varied in their vertical-horizontal orientation, this article examines the extent to which health care practitioners and national policy-makers perceive and attempt to reconcile the tension between these approaches. Informants readily identified advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, but did not perceive a marked vertical-horizontal division, suggesting that tensions appear to be less pronounced in practice than academic debates suggest. A clear consensus did not emerge, and although more people spoke of a mixed approached, they too puzzled over how best to balance trade-offs. In practice, there were examples of more integrated approaches, targeted aspects of horizontal programmes and system-strengthening elements of vertical programmes; however, they were not explicitly identified as such. Practitioner perspectives reinforced the diverse and dynamic nature of disease, both epidemics and country profiles, and suggest that focusing on periods of transition and points of integration may be a fruitful path forward.