Estimating total spending by source of funding on routine and supplementary immunisation activities in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-17: a financial modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Childhood immunisation is one of the most cost-effective health interventions. However, despite its known value, global access to vaccines remains far from complete. Although supply-side constraints lead to inadequate vaccine coverage in many health systems, there is no comprehensive analysis of the funding for immunisation. We aimed to fill this gap by generating estimates of funding for immunisation disaggregated by the source of funding and the type of activities in order to highlight the funding landscape for immunisation and inform policy making. METHODS: For this financial modelling study, we estimated annual spending on immunisations for 135 low-income and middle-income countries (as determined by the World Bank) from 2000 to 2017, with a focus on government, donor, and out-of-pocket spending, and disaggregated spending for vaccines and delivery costs, and routine schedules and supplementary campaigns. To generate these estimates, we extracted data from National Health Accounts, the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Forms, comprehensive multi-year plans, databases from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's 2019 development assistance for health database. We estimated total spending on immunisation by aggregating the government, donor, prepaid private, and household spending estimates. FINDINGS: Between 2000 and 2017, funding for immunisation totalled US$112·4 billion (95% uncertainty interval 108·5-118·5). Aggregated across all low-income and middle-income countries, government spending consistently remained the largest source of funding, providing between 60·0% (57·7-61·9) and 79·3% (73·8-81·4) of total immunisation spending each year (corresponding to between $2·5 billion [2·3-2·8] and $6·4 billion [6·0-7·0] each year). Across income groups, immunisation spending per surviving infant was similar in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and territories, with average spending of $40 (38-42) in low-income countries and $42 (39-46) in lower-middle-income countries, in 2017. In low-income countries and territories, development assistance made up the largest share of total immunisation spending (69·4% [64·6-72·0]; $630·2 million) in 2017. Across the 135 countries, we observed higher vaccine coverage and increased government spending on immunisation over time, although in some countries, predominantly in Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-Saharan Africa, vaccine coverage decreased over time, while spending increased. INTERPRETATION: These estimates highlight the progress over the past two decades in increasing spending on immunisation. However, many challenges still remain and will require dedication and commitment to ensure that the progress made in the previous decade is sustained and advanced in the next decade for the Immunization Agenda 2030. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Tracking development assistance for health from India to low- and middle-income countries, 2009-2020.

BACKGROUND: Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important source of financing for health for many low-income and some middle-income countries. Most DAH has predominantly been contributed by high-income countries. However, in the context of economic progress and changing global priorities, DAH contributions from countries of the Global South such as India have gained importance. In this paper, we estimate DAH contributed by India between 2009 and 2020. METHODS: We leveraged data from budgetary documents, databases, and financial reports of the Ministry of External Affairs and multilateral organizations to estimate DAH contributions. The proportions of development assistance that go towards health in major recipient countries were estimated and reported by recipient country and year. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2020, DAH contributed by India to bilateral and multilateral partners totaled $206.0 million. South Asian countries including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar received the most DAH from India. DAH contributed relative to DAH received ranged from 1.42% in 2009 to 5.26% in 2018, the latest year with country-level data. Health focus areas prioritized by India included technical training and innovation, health care infrastructure support, and supply of medications and medical equipment. CONCLUSION: India is an important development partner to many countries-particularly to those in the South Asian region. India's DAH allocation strategy prioritizes contributions toward neighboring countries in the South Asia region in several health focus areas. Detailed project-level data are needed to estimate DAH contributions from India with greater precision and accuracy.

Factors associated with the disbursements of development assistance for health in low-income and middle-income countries, 2002-2017.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, development assistance for health (DAH) comprised 5.3% of total health spending in low-income countries. Despite the key role DAH plays in global health-spending, little is known about the characteristics of assistance that may be associated with committed assistance that is actually disbursed. In this analysis, we examine associations between these characteristics and disbursement of committed assistance. METHODS: We extracted data from the Creditor Reporting System of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and the WHO National Health Accounts database. Factors examined were off-budget assistance, administrative assistance, publicly sourced assistance and assistance to health systems strengthening. Recipient-country characteristics examined were perceived level of corruption, civil fragility and gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc). We used linear regression methods for panel of data to assess the proportion of committed aid that was disbursed for a given country-year, for each data source. RESULTS: Factors that were associated with a higher disbursement rates include off-budget aid (p<0.001), lower administrative expenses (p<0.01), lower perceived corruption in recipient country (p<0.001), lower fragility in recipient country (p<0.05) and higher GDPpc (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Substantial gaps remain between commitments and disbursements. Characteristics of assistance (administrative, publicly sourced) and indicators of government transparency and fragility are also important drivers associated with disbursement of DAH. There remains a continued need for better aid flow reporting standards and clarity around aid types for better measurement of DAH.

Tracking government spending on immunization: The joint reporting forms, national health accounts, comprehensive multi-year plans and co-financing data.

BACKGROUND: Coverage rates for immunization have dropped in lower income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns regarding potential outbreaks and premature death. In order to re-invigorate immunization service delivery, sufficient financing must be made available from all sources, and particularly from government resources. This study utilizes the most recent data available to provide an updated comparison of available data sources on government spending on immunization. METHODS: We examined data from WHO/UNICEF's Joint Reporting Form (JRF), country Comprehensive Multi-Year Plan (cMYP), country co-financing data for Gavi, and WHO National Health Accounts (NHA) on government spending on immunization for consistency by comparing routine and vaccine spending where both values were reported. We also examined spending trends across time, quantified underreporting and utilized concordance analyses to assess the magnitude of difference between the data sources. RESULTS: Routine immunization spending reported through the cMYP was nearly double that reported through the JRF (rho = 0.64, 95% 0.53 to 0.77) and almost four times higher than that reported through the NHA on average (rho = 3.71, 95% 1.00 to 13.87). Routine immunization spending from the JRF was comparable to spending reported in the NHA (rho = 1.30, 95% 0.97 to 1.75) and vaccine spending from the JRF was comparable to that from the cMYP data (rho = 0.97, 95% 0.84 to 1.12). Vaccine spending from both the JRF and cMYP was higher than Gavi co-financing by a at least two (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.45 to 2.89) and (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.15 to 3.30), respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Overall, our comparative analysis provides a degree of confidence in the validity of existing reporting mechanisms for immunization spending while highlighting areas for potential improvements. Users of these data sources should factor these into consideration when utilizing the data. Additionally, partners should work with governments to encourage more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate reporting of vaccine and immunization spending.