[Investing in health: the economic case. Report of the WISH Investing in Health Forum 2016]. / Invirtiendo en salud: el argumento económico. Informe del Foro sobre Inversión en Salud de la Cumbre Mundial sobre Innovación para la Salud 2016.

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?

Global Lessons In Frugal Innovation To Improve Health Care Delivery In The United States.

In a 2015 global study of low-cost or frugal innovations, we identified five leading innovations that scaled successfully in their original contexts and that may provide insights for scaling such innovations in the United States. We describe common themes among these diverse innovations, critical factors for their translation to the United States to improve the efficiency and quality of health care, and lessons for the implementation and scaling of other innovations. We highlight promising trends in the United States that support adapting these innovations, including growing interest in moving care out of health care facilities and into community and home settings; the growth of alternative payment models and incentives to experiment with new approaches to population health and care delivery; and the increasing use of diverse health professionals, such as community health workers and advanced practice providers. Our findings should inspire policy makers and health care professionals and inform them about the potential for globally sourced frugal innovations to benefit US health care.

Perceived ethical acceptability of financial incentives to improve diabetic eye screening attendance.

OBJECTIVE: To test the ethical acceptability of using financial incentives to increase diabetic retinopathy screening attendance. BACKGROUND: Financial incentives could be an effective way to increase attendance at screening for diabetic retinopathy, although there can be ethical concerns about this approach. DESIGN: Survey of people with diabetes in North West London. Those who were due to attend a screening appointment were invited to complete a questionnaire. Key demographic variables included age, gender, and deprivation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A questionnaire was issued to those invited to attend screening in North West London and those who run the screening service. The questionnaire captured views on aspects of the ethical problem and different incentive types. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: It captured views on the different dimensions of the ethical problem and different types of incentive. In order to understand how views might vary within a population, demographic variables were used to analyze the results. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vouchers were found to be the most acceptable form of incentive, significantly more so than cash payments. Most rejected the notion of targeting those who need incentivizing, preferring equality. Age was an important factor, with those aged between 40 and 64 the most optimistic about the potential benefits. Higher levels of deprivation were linked to increased acceptability scores. While some ethical concerns are strongly held among certain groups, there is also much support for the principle of incentivizing positive behaviors. This paves the way for future research into the effectiveness of incentivizing diabetic retinopathy screening attendance.

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?