How feasible is it to mobilize $31 billion a year for pandemic preparedness and response? An economic growth modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Covid-19 has reinforced health and economic cases for investing in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). The World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO) propose that low- and middle-income governments and donor countries should invest $31.1 billion each year for PPR. We analyse, based on the projected economic growth of countries between 2022 and 2027, how likely it is that low- and middle-income country governments and donors can mobilize the estimated funding. METHODS: We modelled trends in economic growth to project domestic health spending by low- and middle-income governments and official development assistance (ODA) by donors for years 2022 to 2027. We modelled two scenarios for countries and donors - a constant and an optimistic scenario. Under the constant scenario we assume that countries and donors continue to dedicate the same proportion of their health spending and ODA as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national income (GNI), respectively, as they did during baseline (the latest year for which data are available). In the optimistic scenario, we assume a yearly increase of 2.5% in health spending as a share of GDP for countries and ODA as a share of GNI for donors. FINDINGS: Our analysis shows that low-income countries would need to invest on average 37%, lower-middle income countries 9%, and upper-middle income countries 1%, of their total health spending on PPR each year under the constant scenario to meet the World Bank WHO targets. Donors would need to allocate on average 8% of their total ODA across all sectors to PPR each year to meet their target. CONCLUSIONS: The World Bank WHO targets for PPR will not be met unless low- and middle-income governments and donors spend a much higher share of their funding on PPR. Even under optimistic growth scenarios, low-income and lower-middle income countries will require increased support from global health donors. The donor target cannot be met using the yearly increase in ODA under any scenario. If the country and donor targets are not met, the highest-impact health security measures need to be prioritized for funding. Alternative sources of PPR financing could include global taxation (e.g., on financial transactions, carbon, or airline flights), cancelling debt, and addressing illicit financial flows. There is also a need for continued work on estimating current PPR costs and funding requirements in order to arrive at more enduring and reliable estimates.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of screening and preventive interventions for cardiovascular disease in Myanmar: an economic modelling study.

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remains a leading cause of mortality in Myanmar. Despite the burden, CVD preventive services receive low government and donor budgets, which has led to poor CVD outcomes. Methods: We conducted a cost-effective analysis and a budget impact analysis on CVD prevention strategies recommended by the WHO. A Markov model was used to analyse the cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from healthcare provider and societal perspectives. We calculated transition probabilities from WHO CVD risk data and obtained treatment effects and costs from secondary sources. Subgroup analysis was performed on different sex and age groups. We framed the budget impact analysis from a healthcare provider perspective to assess the affordability of providing CVD preventive care. Findings: The most cost-effective strategy from the healthcare provider perspective varied. The combination of screening, primary prevention, and secondary prevention (Sc-PP-SP) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: US$1574/QALY) is most cost-effective at the three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita threshold, while at one time the GDP per capita threshold, secondary prevention is the most cost-effective strategy (ICER: US$160/QALY). Sc-PP-SP is the most cost-effective strategy from the societal perspective (ICER: US$647/QALY). Among age groups, intervention at age 45 years appeared to be the most cost-effective option for both men and women. The budget impact revealed the Sc-PP-SP would avert 55,000 acute CVD events and 28,000 CVD-related deaths with a cost of US$157 million for the first year of CVD preventive care. Interpretation: A combination of screening, primary prevention, and secondary prevention is cost-effective to reduce CVD-related deaths in Myanmar. This study provides evidence for the government and development partners to increase investment in and support for CVD prevention. These findings not only provide a basis for efficient resource allocation but also underscore the importance of adopting a total cardiovascular risk approach to CVD prevention, in alignment with global health goals. Funding: Pilot grant from Duke Global Health Institute, USA.

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.

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?

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.