Private pharmacies as healthcare providers in Odisha, India: analysis and implications for universal health coverage.

INTRODUCTION: In India, as in many low-income and middle-income countries, the private sector provides a large share of health care. Pharmacies represent a major share of private care, yet there are few studies on their role as healthcare providers. Our study examines: (1) What are the characteristics of and services provided by private pharmacies and how do these compare with other outpatient care providers? (2) What are the characteristics of patients who opted to use private pharmacies? (3) What are the reasons why people seek healthcare from private pharmacies? (4) What are the quality of services and cost of care for these patients? Based on our findings, we discuss some policy implications for universal health coverage in the Indian context. METHODS: We analyse data from four surveys in Odisha, one of India's poorest states: a household survey on health-seeking behaviours and reasons for healthcare choices (N=7567), a survey of private pharmacies (N=1021), a survey of public sector primary care facilities (N=358), and a survey of private-sector solo-providers (N=684). RESULTS: 17% of the households seek outpatient care from private pharmacies (similar to rates for public primary-care facilities). 25% of the pharmacies were not registered appropriately under Indian regulations, 90% reported providing medical advice, and 26% reported substituting prescribed drugs. Private pharmacies had longer staffed hours and better stocks of essential drugs than public primary-care facilities. Patients reported choosing private pharmacies because of convenience and better drug stocks; reported higher satisfaction and lower out-of-pocket expenditure with private pharmacies than with other providers. CONCLUSION: This is the first large-scale study of private pharmacies in India, with a comparison to other healthcare providers and users' perceptions and experiences of their services. To move towards universal health coverage, India, a country with a pluralistic health system, needs a comprehensive health systems approach that incorporates both the public and private sectors, including private pharmacies.

Catastrophic health expenditure during the COVID-19 pandemic in five countries: a time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health systems in 2020, but it is unclear how financial hardship due to out-of-pocket (OOP) health-care costs was affected. We analysed catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) in 2020 in five countries with available household expenditure data: Belarus, Mexico, Peru, Russia, and Viet Nam. In Mexico and Peru, we also conducted an analysis of drivers of change in CHE in 2020 using publicly available data. METHODS: In this time-series analysis, we defined CHE as when OOP health-care spending exceeds 10% of consumption expenditure. Data for 2004-20 were obtained from individual and household level survey microdata (available for Mexico and Peru only), and tabulated data from the National Statistical Committee of Belarus and the World Bank Health Equity and Financial Protection Indicator database (for Viet Nam and Russia). We compared 2020 CHE with the CHE predicted from historical trends using an ensemble model. This method was also used to assess drivers of CHE: insurance coverage, OOP expenditure, and consumption expenditure. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to investigate the role of stay-at-home orders in March, 2020 in changes in health-care use and sector (ie, private vs public). FINDINGS: In Mexico, CHE increased to 5·6% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 5·1-6·2) in 2020, higher than predicted (3·2%, 2·5-4·0). In Belarus, CHE was 13·5% (11·8-15·2) in 2020, also higher than predicted (9·7%, 7·7-11·3). CHE was not different than predicted by past trends in Russia, Peru, and Viet Nam. Between March and April, 2020, health-care visits dropped by 4·6 (2·6-6·5) percentage points in Mexico and by 48·3 (40·6-56·0) percentage points in Peru, and the private share of health-care visits increased by 7·3 (4·3-10·3) percentage points in Mexico and by 20·7 (17·3-24·0) percentage points in Peru. INTERPRETATION: In three of the five countries studied, health systems either did not protect people from the financial risks of health care or did not maintain health-care access in 2020, an indication of health systems failing to maintain basic functions. If the 2020 response to the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated shifts to private health-care use, policies to cover costs in that sector or motivate patients to return to the public sector are needed to maintain financial risk protection. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Comprehensive Assessment of Health System Performance in Odisha, India.

India has recently implemented several major health care reforms at national and state levels, yet the nation continues to face significant challenges in achieving better health system performance. These challenges are particularly daunting in India's poorer states, like Odisha. The first step toward overcoming these challenges is to understand their root causes. Toward this end, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health conducted a comprehensive study in Odisha based on ten new field surveys of the system's performance to provide a multi-perspective analysis. This article reports on the assessment of the performance of Odisha's health system and the preliminary diagnosis of underlying causes of the strengths and challenges. This comprehensive health system assessment is aimed toward the overarching goals of informing and supporting efforts to improve the performance of health systems in Odisha and other similar contexts.

Varied Health Spending Growth Across US States Was Associated With Incomes, Price Levels, And Medicaid Expansion, 2000-19.

Little is known about health care spending variation across the US for recent years. To estimate health spending by state and payer, we combined data from the government's State Health Expenditure Accounts, which have estimates through 2014, with other primary data on spending. In 2019 state-specific per person spending ranged from $7,250 to $14,500. After adjustment for inflation, annualized per person spending growth for each state ranged from 1.0 percent in Washington, D.C., to 4.2 percent in South Dakota between 2013 and 2019. The factors that explained the most variation across states were incomes (25.3 percent) and consumer prices (21.7 percent). Medicaid expansion was associated with increases in total spending per person, although the median of spending in expansion states showed slower growth in out-of-pocket spending than the median in nonexpansion states. Contemporary estimates of state health spending are valuable for tracking divergent expenditure trajectories in the US and assessing the associated factors.

Comparative health systems analysis of differences in the catastrophic health expenditure associated with non-communicable vs communicable diseases among adults in six countries.

The growing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in low- and middle-income countries may have implications for health system performance in the area of financial risk protection, as measured by catastrophic health expenditure (CHE). We compare NCD CHE to the CHE cases caused by communicable diseases (CDs) across health systems to examine whether: (1) disease burden and CHE are linked, (2) NCD CHE disproportionately affects wealthier households and (3) whether the drivers of NCD CHE differ from the drivers of CD CHE. We used the Study on Global Aging and Adult Health survey, which captured nationally representative samples of 44 089 adults in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa. Using two-part regression and random forests, we estimated out-of-pocket spending and CHE by disease area. We compare the NCD share of CHE to the NCD share of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) or years of life lost to disability and death. We tested for differences between NCDs and CDs in the out-of-pocket costs per visit and the number of visits occurring before spending crosses the CHE threshold. NCD CHE increased with the NCD share of DALYs except in South Africa, where NCDs caused more than 50% of CHE cases but only 30% of DALYs. A larger share of households incurred CHE due to NCDs in the lowest than the highest wealth quintile. NCD CHE cases were more likely to be caused by five or more health care visits relative to communicable disease CHE cases in Ghana (P = 0.003), India (P = 0.004) and China (P = 0.093). Health system attributes play a key mediating factor in how disease burden translates into CHE by disease. Health systems must target the specific characteristics of CHE by disease area to bolster financial risk protection as the epidemiological transition proceeds.

Measuring contraceptive method mix, prevalence, and demand satisfied by age and marital status in 204 countries and territories, 1970-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

BACKGROUND: Meeting the contraceptive needs of women of reproductive age is beneficial for the health of women and children, and the economic and social empowerment of women. Higher rates of contraceptive coverage have been linked to the availability of a more diverse range of contraceptive methods. We present estimates of the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), demand satisfied, and the method of contraception used for both partnered and unpartnered women for 5-year age groups in 204 countries and territories between 1970 and 2019. METHODS: We used 1162 population-based surveys capturing contraceptive use among women between 1970 and 2019, in which women of reproductive age (15-49 years) self-reported their, or their partner's, current use of contraception for family planning purposes. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression was used to generate estimates of the CPR, mCPR, demand satisfied, and method mix by age and marital status. We assessed how age-specific mCPR and demand satisfied changed with the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a measure of social and economic development, using the meta-regression Bayesian, regularised, trimmed method from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study. FINDINGS: In 2019, 162·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 155·6-170·2) women had unmet need for contraception, of whom 29·3% (27·9-30·6) resided in sub-Saharan Africa and 27·2% (24·4-30·3) resided in south Asia. Women aged 15-19 years (64·8% [62·9-66·7]) and 20-24 years (71·9% [68·9-74·2]) had the lowest rates of demand satisfied, with 43·2 million (95% UI 39·3-48·0) women aged 15-24 years with unmet need in 2019. The mCPR and demand satisfied among women aged 15-19 years were substantially lower than among women aged 20-49 years at SDI values below 60 (on a 0-100 scale), but began to equalise as SDI increased above 60. Between 1970 and 2019, the global mCPR increased by 20·1 percentage points (95% UI 18·7-21·6). During this time, traditional methods declined as a proportion of all contraceptive methods, whereas the use of implants, injections, female sterilisation, and condoms increased. Method mix differs substantially depending on age and geography, with the share of female sterilisation increasing with age and comprising more than 50% of methods in use in south Asia. In 28 countries, one method was used by more than 50% of users in 2019. INTERPRETATION: The dominance of one contraceptive method in some locations raises the question of whether family planning policies should aim to expand method mix or invest in making existing methods more accessible. Lower rates of demand satisfied among women aged 15-24 years are also concerning because unintended pregnancies before age 25 years can forestall or eliminate education and employment opportunities that lead to social and economic empowerment. Policy makers should strive to tailor family planning programmes to the preferences of the groups with the most need, while maintaining the programmes used by existing users. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Catastrophic health expenditure on private sector pharmaceuticals: a cross-sectional analysis from the state of Odisha, India.

India has high rates of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE): 16% of Indian households incur CHE. To understand why CHE is so high, we conducted an in-depth analysis in the state of Odisha-a state with high rates of public sector facility use, reported eligibility for public insurance of 80%, and the provision of drugs for free in government-run facilities-yet with the second-highest rates of CHE across India (24%). We collected household data in 2019 representative of the state of Odisha and captured extensive information about healthcare seeking, including the facility type, its sector (private or public), how much was spent out-of-pocket, and where drugs were obtained. We employ Shapley decomposition to attribute variation in CHE and other financial hardship metrics to characteristics of healthcare, controlling for health and social determinants. We find that 36.3% (95% uncertainty interval: 32.7-40.1) of explained variation in CHE is attributed to whether a private sector pharmacy was used and the number of drugs obtained. Of all outpatient visits, 13% are with a private sector chemist, a similar rate as public primary providers (15%). Insurance was used in just 6% of hospitalizations and its use explained just 0.2% (0.1-0.4) of CHE overall. Eighty-six percent of users of outpatient care obtained drugs from the private sector. We estimate that eliminating spending on private drugs would reduce CHE by 56% in Odisha. The private sector for pharmaceuticals fulfills an essential health system function in Odisha-supplying drugs to the vast majority of patients. To improve financial risk protection in Odisha, the role currently fulfilled by private sector pharmacies must be considered alongside existing shortcomings in the public sector provision of drugs and the lack of outpatient care and drug coverage in public insurance programs.

Quantifying the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender equality on health, social, and economic indicators: a comprehensive review of data from March, 2020, to September, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Gender is emerging as a significant factor in the social, economic, and health effects of COVID-19. However, most existing studies have focused on its direct impact on health. Here, we aimed to explore the indirect effects of COVID-19 on gender disparities globally. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available datasets with information on indicators related to vaccine hesitancy and uptake, health care services, economic and work-related concerns, education, and safety at home and in the community. We used mixed effects regression, Gaussian process regression, and bootstrapping to synthesise all data sources. We accounted for uncertainty in the underlying data and modelling process. We then used mixed effects logistic regression to explore gender gaps globally and by region. FINDINGS: Between March, 2020, and September, 2021, women were more likely to report employment loss (26·0% [95% uncertainty interval 23·8-28·8, by September, 2021) than men (20·4% [18·2-22·9], by September, 2021), as well as forgoing work to care for others (ratio of women to men: 1·8 by March, 2020, and 2·4 by September, 2021). Women and girls were 1·21 times (1·20-1·21) more likely than men and boys to report dropping out of school for reasons other than school closures. Women were also 1·23 (1·22-1·23) times more likely than men to report that gender-based violence had increased during the pandemic. By September 2021, women and men did not differ significantly in vaccine hesitancy or uptake. INTERPRETATION: The most significant gender gaps identified in our study show intensified levels of pre-existing widespread inequalities between women and men during the COVID-19 pandemic. Political and social leaders should prioritise policies that enable and encourage women to participate in the labour force and continue their education, thereby equipping and enabling them with greater ability to overcome the barriers they face. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Examining the density in out-of-pocket spending share in the estimation of catastrophic health expenditures.

Universal health coverage (UHC) aims to provide access to health services for all without financial hardship. Moving toward UHC while ensuring financial risk protection (FRP) from out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditures is a critical objective of the Sustainable Development Goal for Health. In tracking country progress toward UHC, analysts and policymakers usually report on two summary indicators of lack of FRP: the prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and the prevalence of impoverishing health expenditures. In this paper, we build on the CHE indicator: we examine the distribution (density) of health OOP budget share as a way to capture both the magnitude and dispersion in the ratio of households' OOP health expenditures relative to consumption or income at the population level. We illustrate our approach with country-specific examples using data from the World Health Organization's World Health Surveys.

US Health Care Spending by Race and Ethnicity, 2002-2016.

Importance: Measuring health care spending by race and ethnicity is important for understanding patterns in utilization and treatment. Objective: To estimate, identify, and account for differences in health care spending by race and ethnicity from 2002 through 2016 in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This exploratory study included data from 7.3 million health system visits, admissions, or prescriptions captured in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2002-2016) and the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (2002-2012), which were combined with the insured population and notified case estimates from the National Health Interview Survey (2002; 2016) and health care spending estimates from the Disease Expenditure project (1996-2016). Exposure: Six mutually exclusive self-reported race and ethnicity groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total and age-standardized health care spending per person by race and ethnicity for each year from 2002 through 2016 by type of care. Health care spending per notified case by race and ethnicity for key diseases in 2016. Differences in health care spending across race and ethnicity groups were decomposed into differences in utilization rate vs differences in price and intensity of care. Results: In 2016, an estimated $2.4 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $2.4 trillion-$2.4 trillion) was spent on health care across the 6 types of care included in this study. The estimated age-standardized total health care spending per person in 2016 was $7649 (95% UI, $6129-$8814) for American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) individuals; $4692 (95% UI, $4068-$5202) for Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) individuals; $7361 (95% UI, $6917-$7797) for Black (non-Hispanic) individuals; $6025 (95% UI, $5703-$6373) for Hispanic individuals; $9276 (95% UI, $8066-$10 601) for individuals categorized as multiple races (non-Hispanic); and $8141 (95% UI, $8038-$8258) for White (non-Hispanic) individuals, who accounted for an estimated 72% (95% UI, 71%-73%) of health care spending. After adjusting for population size and age, White individuals received an estimated 15% (95% UI, 13%-17%; P < .001) more spending on ambulatory care than the all-population mean. Black (non-Hispanic) individuals received an estimated 26% (95% UI, 19%-32%; P < .001) less spending than the all-population mean on ambulatory care but received 19% (95% UI, 3%-32%; P = .02) more on inpatient and 12% (95% UI, 4%-24%; P = .04) more on emergency department care. Hispanic individuals received an estimated 33% (95% UI, 26%-37%; P < .001) less spending per person on ambulatory care than the all-population mean. Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) individuals received less spending than the all-population mean on all types of care except dental (all P < .001), while American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) individuals had more spending on emergency department care than the all-population mean (estimated 90% more; 95% UI, 11%-165%; P = .04), and multiple-race (non-Hispanic) individuals had more spending on emergency department care than the all-population mean (estimated 40% more; 95% UI, 19%-63%; P = .006). All 18 of the statistically significant race and ethnicity spending differences by type of care corresponded with differences in utilization. These differences persisted when controlling for underlying disease burden. Conclusions and Relevance: In the US from 2002 through 2016, health care spending varied by race and ethnicity across different types of care even after adjusting for age and health conditions. Further research is needed to determine current health care spending by race and ethnicity, including spending related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Are rhetorical commitments to adolescents reflected in planning documents? An exploratory content analysis of adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Global Financing Facility country plans.

BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) offers an opportunity to close the financing gap that holds back gains in women, children's and adolescent health. However, very little work exists examining GFF practice, particularly for adolescent health. As momentum builds for the GFF, we examine initial GFF planning documents to inform future national and multi-lateral efforts to advance adolescent sexual and reproductive health. METHODS: We undertook a content analysis of the first 11 GFF Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents available on the GFF website. The countries involved include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. RESULTS: While several country documents signal understanding and investment in adolescents as a strategic area, this is not consistent across all countries, nor between Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents. In both types of documents commitments weaken as one moves from programming content to indicators to investment. Important contributions include how teenage pregnancy is a universal concern, how adolescent and youth friendly health services and school-based programs are supported in several country documents, how gender is noted as a key social determinant critical for mainstreaming across the health system, alongside the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration, and the acknowledgement of adolescent rights. Weaknesses include the lack of comprehensive analysis of adolescent health needs, inconsistent investments in adolescent friendly health services and school based programs, missed opportunities in not supporting multi-component and multi-level initiatives to change gender norms involving adolescent boys in addition to adolescent girls, and neglect of governance approaches to broker effective multi-sectoral collaboration, community engagement and adolescent involvement. CONCLUSION: There are important examples of how the GFF supports adolescents and their sexual and reproductive health. However, more can be done. While building on service delivery approaches more consistently, it must also fund initiatives that address the main social and systems drivers of adolescent health. This requires capacity building for the technical aspects of adolescent health, but also engaging politically to ensure that the right actors are convened to prioritize adolescent health in country plans and to ensure accountability in the GFF process itself.

Rural-urban disparities in colonoscopies after the elimination of patient cost-sharing by the Affordable Care Act.

INTRODUCTION: Improving the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer is a priority for reducing rural-urban disparities in colorectal cancer mortality. By eliminating out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for preventive colonoscopies, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could have reduced rural-urban disparities in screening. METHODS: We used the Maine Health Data Organization All-Payer Claims Database including all commercially-insured and Medicare beneficiaries aged 50-75 between 2009 and 2012. Rural-urban commuting areas were used to classify rural/urban residence. ICD-9 and CPT codes identified colonoscopies. We summed all OOP payments per patient-day. An interrupted time series model estimated the impact of the ACA on trends in rural-urban disparities in colonoscopy rates and OOP costs. RESULTS: Before the ACA, colonoscopy rates were 16% lower in rural than urban areas (5.1% vs. 6.1% of enrollees annually) and median OOP costs were nearly double ($195 vs. $98). The ACA reduced median OOP payments by $94 (p = .001) initially and $4 monthly (p = .038) in rural areas, and $63 (p < .001) in urban areas. The rural-urban gap in OOP payments dropped by $4 monthly (p = .007). The ACA also reduced rural-urban disparities in colonoscopy rates (disparity decrease of 0.005 (6%) monthly, p < .001). The rural-urban gap in colonoscopy rates declined 40% relative to the pre-ACA period by December 2012. CONCLUSIONS: The ACA was associated with significant reductions in rural-urban disparities in colonoscopies in Maine, suggesting that OOP costs are an important barrier for rural residents. Further research is needed to determine whether increased uptake, particularly in rural areas, translated into better patient outcomes for colorectal cancer.

Lenses and levels: the why, what and how of measuring health system drivers of women's, children's and adolescents' health with a governance focus.

Health systems are critical for health outcomes as they underpin intervention coverage and quality, promote users' rights and intervene on the social determinants of health. Governance is essential for health system endeavours as it mobilises and coordinates a multiplicity of actors and interests to realise common goals. The inherently social, political and contextualised nature of governance, and health systems more broadly, has implications for measurement, including how the health of women, children and adolescents health is viewed and assessed, and for whom. Three common lenses, each with their own views of power dynamics in policy and programme implementation, include a service delivery lens aimed at scaling effective interventions, a societal lens oriented to empowering people with rights to effect change and a systems lens concerned with creating enabling environments for adaptive learning. We illustrate the implications of each lens for the why, what and how of measuring health system drivers across micro, meso and macro health systems levels, through three examples (digital health, maternal and perinatal death surveillance and review, and multisectoral action for adolescent health). Appreciating these underpinnings of measuring health systems and governance drivers of the health of women, children and adolescents is essential for a holistic learning and action agenda that engages a wider range of stakeholders, which includes, but also goes beyond, indicator-based measurement. Without a broadening of approaches to measurement and the types of research partnerships involved, continued investments in the health of women, children and adolescents will fall short.

The G20 and development assistance for health: historical trends and crucial questions to inform a new era.

One of the most important gatherings of the world's economic leaders, the G20 Summit and ministerial meetings, takes place in June, 2019. The Summit presents a valuable opportunity to reflect on the provision and receipt of development assistance for health (DAH) and the role the G20 can have in shaping the future of health financing. The participants at the G20 Summit (ie, the world's largest providers of DAH, emerging donors, and DAH recipients) and this Summit's particular focus on global health and the Sustainable Development Goals offers a unique forum to consider the changing DAH context and its pressing questions. In this Health Policy perspective, we examined trends in DAH and its evolution over time, with a particular focus on G20 countries; pointed to persistent and emerging challenges for discussion at the G20 Summit; and highlighted key questions for G20 leaders to address to put the future of DAH on course to meet the expansive Sustainable Development Goals. Key questions include how to best focus DAH for equitable health gains, how to deliver DAH to strengthen health systems, and how to support domestic resource mobilisation and transformative partnerships for sustainable impact. These issues are discussed in the context of the growing effects of climate change, demographic and epidemiological transitions, and a global political shift towards increasing prioritisation of national interests. Although not all these questions are new, novel approaches to allocating DAH that prioritise equity, efficiency, and sustainability, particularly through domestic resource use and mobilisation are needed. Wrestling with difficult questions in a changing landscape is essential to develop a DAH financing system capable of supporting and sustaining crucial global health goals.

Potential for additional government spending on HIV/AIDS in 137 low-income and middle-income countries: an economic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Between 2012 and 2016, development assistance for HIV/AIDS decreased by 20·0%; domestic financing is therefore critical to sustaining the response to HIV/AIDS. To understand whether domestic resources could fill the financing gaps created by declines in development assistance, we aimed to track spending on HIV/AIDS and estimated the potential for governments to devote additional domestic funds to HIV/AIDS. METHODS: We extracted 8589 datapoints reporting spending on HIV/AIDS. We used spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to estimate a complete time series of spending by domestic sources (government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket) and spending category (prevention, and care and treatment) from 2000 to 2016 for 137 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Development assistance data for HIV/AIDS were from Financing Global Health 2018, and HIV/AIDS prevalence, incidence, and mortality were from the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. We used stochastic frontier analysis to estimate potential additional government spending on HIV/AIDS, which was conditional on the current government health budget and other finance, economic, and contextual factors associated with HIV/AIDS spending. All spending estimates were reported in 2018 US$. FINDINGS: Between 2000 and 2016, total spending on HIV/AIDS in LMICs increased from $4·0 billion (95% uncertainty interval 2·9-6·0) to $19·9 billion (15·8-26·3), spending on HIV/AIDS prevention increased from $596 million (258 million to 1·3 billion) to $3·0 billion (1·5-5·8), and spending on HIV/AIDS care and treatment increased from $1·1 billion (458·1 million to 2·2 billion) to $7·2 billion (4·3-11·8). Over this time period, the share of resources sourced from development assistance increased from 33·2% (21·3-45·0) to 46·0% (34·2-57·0). Care and treatment spending per year on antiretroviral therapy varied across countries, with an IQR of $284-2915. An additional $12·1 billion (8·4-17·5) globally could be mobilised by governments of LMICs to finance the response to HIV/AIDS. Most of these potential resources are concentrated in ten middle-income countries (Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa, and Vietnam). INTERPRETATION: Some governments could mobilise more domestic resources to fight HIV/AIDS, which could free up additional development assistance for many countries without this ability, including many low-income, high-prevalence countries. However, a large gap exists between available financing and the funding needed to achieve global HIV/AIDS goals, and sustained and coordinated effort across international and domestic development partners is required to end AIDS by 2030. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Tracking spending on malaria by source in 106 countries, 2000-16: an economic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Sustaining achievements in malaria control and making progress toward malaria elimination requires coordinated funding. We estimated domestic malaria spending by source in 106 countries that were malaria-endemic in 2000-16 or became malaria-free after 2000. METHODS: We collected 36 038 datapoints reporting government, out-of-pocket (OOP), and prepaid private malaria spending, as well as malaria treatment-seeking, costs of patient care, and drug prices. We estimated government spending on patient care for malaria, which was added to government spending by national malaria control programmes. For OOP malaria spending, we used data reported in National Health Accounts and estimated OOP spending on treatment. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression was used to ensure estimates were complete and comparable across time and to generate uncertainty. FINDINGS: In 2016, US$4·3 billion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 4·2-4·4) was spent on malaria worldwide, an 8·5% (95% UI 8·1-8·9) per year increase over spending in 2000. Since 2000, OOP spending increased 3·8% (3·3-4·2) per year, amounting to $556 million (487-634) or 13·0% (11·6-14·5) of all malaria spending in 2016. Governments spent $1·2 billion (1·1-1·3) or 28·2% (27·1-29·3) of all malaria spending in 2016, increasing 4·0% annually since 2000. The source of malaria spending varied depending on whether countries were in the malaria control or elimination stage. INTERPRETATION: Tracking global malaria spending provides insight into how far the world is from reaching the malaria funding target of $6·6 billion annually by 2020. Because most countries with a high burden of malaria are low income or lower-middle income, mobilising additional government resources for malaria might be challenging. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Disaggregating catastrophic health expenditure by disease area: cross-country estimates based on the World Health Surveys.

BACKGROUND: Financial risk protection (FRP) is a key objective of national health systems and a core pillar of universal health coverage (UHC). Yet, little is known about the disease-specific distribution of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) at the national level. METHODS: Using the World Health Surveys (WHS) from 39 countries, we quantified CHE, or household health spending that surpasses 40% of capacity-to-pay by key disease areas. We restricted our analysis to households in which the respondent used health care in the last 30 days and categorized CHE into disease areas included as WHS response options: maternal and child health (MCH); high fever, severe diarrhea, or cough; heart disease; asthma; injury; surgery; and other. We compared disease-specific CHE estimates by income, pooled funding as a share of total health expenditure, share of the population affected by the different diseases, and poverty status. RESULTS: Across countries, an average of 45.1% of CHE cases could not be tied to a specific cause; 37.6% (95% UI 35.4-39.9%) of CHE cases were associated with high fever, severe cough, or diarrhea; 3.9% (3.0-4.9%) with MCH; and 4.1% (3.3-4.9%) with heart disease. Injuries constituted 5.2% (4.2-6.4%) of CHE cases. The distribution of CHE varied substantially by national income. A 10% increase in heart disease prevalence was associated with a 1.9% (1.3-2.4%) increase in heart disease CHE, an association stronger than any other disease area. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach is comparable, comprehensive, and empirically based and highlights how financial risk protection may not be aligned with disease burden. Disease-specific CHE estimates can illuminate how health systems can target reform to best protect households from financial risk.