Development assistance for health: past trends, associations, and the future of international financial flows for health.

BACKGROUND: Disbursements of development assistance for health (DAH) have risen substantially during the past several decades. More recently, the international community's attention has turned to other international challenges, introducing uncertainty about the future of disbursements for DAH. METHODS: We collected audited budget statements, annual reports, and project-level records from the main international agencies that disbursed DAH from 1990 to the end of 2015. We standardised and combined records to provide a comprehensive set of annual disbursements. We tracked each dollar of DAH back to the source and forward to the recipient. We removed transfers between agencies to avoid double-counting and adjusted for inflation. We classified assistance into nine primary health focus areas: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal health, newborn and child health, other infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, Ebola, and sector-wide approaches and health system strengthening. For our statistical analysis, we grouped these health focus areas into two categories: MDG-related focus areas (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, child and newborn health, and maternal health) and non-MDG-related focus areas (other infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, sector-wide approaches, and other). We used linear regression to test for structural shifts in disbursement patterns at the onset of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs; ie, from 2000) and the global financial crisis (impact estimated to occur in 2010). We built on past trends and associations with an ensemble model to estimate DAH through the end of 2040. FINDINGS: In 2015, US$36·4 billion of DAH was disbursed, marking the fifth consecutive year of little change in the amount of resources provided by global health development partners. Between 2000 and 2009, DAH increased at 11·3% per year, whereas between 2010 and 2015, annual growth was just 1·2%. In 2015, 29·7% of DAH was for HIV/AIDS, 17·9% was for child and newborn health, and 9·8% was for maternal health. Linear regression identifies three distinct periods of growth in DAH. Between 2000 and 2009, MDG-related DAH increased by $290·4 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 174·3 million to 406·5 million) per year. These increases were significantly greater than were increases in non-MDG DAH during the same period (p=0·009), and were also significantly greater than increases in the previous period (p<0·0001). Between 2000 and 2009, growth in DAH was highest for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Since 2010, DAH for maternal health and newborn and child health has continued to climb, although DAH for HIV/AIDS and most other health focus areas has remained flat or decreased. Our estimates of future DAH based on past trends and associations present a wide range of potential futures, although our mean estimate of $64·1 billion (95% UI $30·4 billion to $161·8 billion) shows an increase between now and 2040, although with a large uncertainty interval. INTERPRETATION: Our results provide evidence of two substantial shifts in DAH growth during the past 26 years. DAH disbursements increased faster in the first decade of the 2000s than in the 1990s, but DAH associated with the MDGs increased the most out of all focus areas. Since 2010, limited growth has characterised DAH and we expect this pattern to persist. Despite the fact that DAH is still growing, albeit minimally, DAH is shifting among the major health focus areas, with relatively little growth for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. These changes in the growth and focus of DAH will have critical effects on health services in some low-income countries. Coordination and collaboration between donors and domestic governments is more important than ever because they have a great opportunity and responsibility to ensure robust health systems and service provision for those most in need. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Factors Associated With Increases in US Health Care Spending, 1996-2013.

Importance: Health care spending in the United States increased substantially from 1995 to 2015 and comprised 17.8% of the economy in 2015. Understanding the relationship between known factors and spending increases over time could inform policy efforts to contain future spending growth. Objective: To quantify changes in spending associated with 5 fundamental factors related to health care spending in the United States: population size, population age structure, disease prevalence or incidence, service utilization, and service price and intensity. Design and Setting: Data on the 5 factors from 1996 through 2013 were extracted for 155 health conditions, 36 age and sex groups, and 6 types of care from the Global Burden of Disease 2015 study and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's US Disease Expenditure 2013 project. Decomposition analysis was performed to estimate the association between changes in these factors and changes in health care spending and to estimate the variability across health conditions and types of care. Exposures: Change in population size, population aging, disease prevalence or incidence, service utilization, or service price and intensity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in health care spending from 1996 through 2013. Results: After adjustments for price inflation, annual health care spending on inpatient, ambulatory, retail pharmaceutical, nursing facility, emergency department, and dental care increased by $933.5 billion between 1996 and 2013, from $1.2 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Increases in US population size were associated with a 23.1% (uncertainty interval [UI], 23.1%-23.1%), or $269.5 (UI, $269.0-$270.0) billion, spending increase; aging of the population was associated with an 11.6% (UI, 11.4%-11.8%), or $135.7 (UI, $133.3-$137.7) billion, spending increase. Changes in disease prevalence or incidence were associated with spending reductions of 2.4% (UI, 0.9%-3.8%), or $28.2 (UI, $10.5-$44.4) billion, whereas changes in service utilization were not associated with a statistically significant change in spending. Changes in service price and intensity were associated with a 50.0% (UI, 45.0%-55.0%), or $583.5 (UI, $525.2-$641.4) billion, spending increase. The influence of these 5 factors varied by health condition and type of care. For example, the increase in annual diabetes spending between 1996 and 2013 was $64.4 (UI, $57.9-$70.6) billion; $44.4 (UI, $38.7-$49.6) billion of this increase was pharmaceutical spending. Conclusions and Relevance: Increases in US health care spending from 1996 through 2013 were largely related to increases in health care service price and intensity but were also positively associated with population growth and aging and negatively associated with disease prevalence or incidence. Understanding these factors and their variability across health conditions and types of care may inform policy efforts to contain health care spending.

Public financing of health in developing countries: a cross-national systematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Government spending on health from domestic sources is an important indicator of a government's commitment to the health of its people, and is essential for the sustainability of health programmes. We aimed to systematically analyse all data sources available for government spending on health in developing countries; describe trends in public financing of health; and test the extent to which they were related to changes in gross domestic product (GDP), government size, HIV prevalence, debt relief, and development assistance for health (DAH) to governmental and non-governmental sectors. METHODS: We did a systematic analysis of all data sources available for government expenditures on health as agent (GHE-A) in developing countries, including government reports and databases from WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). GHE-A consists of domestically and externally financed public health expenditures. We assessed the quality of these sources and used multiple imputation to generate a complete sequence of GHE-A. With these data and those for DAH to governments, we estimated government spending on health from domestic sources. We used panel-regression methods to estimate the association between government domestic spending on health and GDP, government size, HIV prevalence, debt relief, and DAH disbursed to governmental and non-governmental sectors. We tested the robustness of our conclusions using various models and subsets of countries. FINDINGS: In all developing countries, public financing of health in constant US$ from domestic sources increased by nearly 100% (IMF 120%; WHO 88%) from 1995 to 2006. Overall, this increase was the product of rising GDP, slight decreases in the share of GDP spent by government, and increases in the share of government spending on health. At the country level, while shares of government expenditures to health increased in many regions, they decreased in many sub-Saharan African countries. The statistical analysis showed that DAH to government had a negative and significant effect on domestic government spending on health such that for every US$1 of DAH to government, government health expenditures from domestic resources were reduced by $0.43 (p=0) to $1.14 (p=0). However, DAH to the non-governmental sector had a positive and significant effect on domestic government health spending. Both results were robust to multiple specifications and subset analyses. Other factors, such as debt relief, had no detectable effect on domestic government health spending. INTERPRETATION: To address the negative effect of DAH on domestic government health spending, we recommend strong standardised monitoring of government health expenditures and government spending in other health-related sectors; establishment of collaborative targets to maintain or increase the share of government expenditures going to health; investment in the capacity of developing countries to effectively receive and use DAH; careful assessment of the risks and benefits of expanded DAH to non-governmental sectors; and investigation of the use of global price subsidies or product transfers as mechanisms for DAH. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Trends and outcomes in primary health care expenditures in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-2017.

INTRODUCTION: As the world responds to COVID-19 and aims for the Sustainable Development Goals, the potential for primary healthcare (PHC) is substantial, although the trends and effectiveness of PHC expenditure are unknown. We estimate PHC expenditure for each low-income and middle-income country between 2000 and 2017 and test which health outputs and outcomes were associated with PHC expenditure. METHODS: We used three data sources to estimate PHC expenditures: recently published health expenditure estimates for each low-income and middle-income country, which were constructed using 1662 country-reported National Health Accounts; proprietary data from IQVIA to estimate expenditure of prescribed pharmaceuticals for PHC; and household surveys and costing estimates to estimate inpatient vaginal delivery expenditures. We employed regression analyses to measure the association between PHC expenditures and 15 health outcomes and intermediate health outputs. RESULTS: PHC expenditures in low-income and middle-income countries increased between 2000 and 2017, from $41 per capita (95% uncertainty interval $33-$49) to $90 ($73-$105). Expenditures for low-income countries plateaued since 2014 at $17 per capita ($15-$19). As national income increased, the proportion of health expenditures on PHC generally decrease; however, the fraction of PHC expenditures spent via ambulatory care providers grew. Increases in the fraction of health expenditures on PHC was associated with lower maternal mortality rate (p value≤0.001), improved coverage of antenatal care visits (p value≤0.001), measles vaccination (p value≤0.001) and an increase in the Health Access and Quality index (p value≤0.05). PHC expenditure was not systematically associated with all-age mortality, communicable and non-communicable disease (NCD) burden. CONCLUSION: PHC expenditures were associated with maternal and child health but were not associated with reduction in health burden for other key causes of disability, such as NCDs. To combat changing disease burdens, policy-makers and health professionals need to adapt primary healthcare to ensure continued impact on emerging health challenges.

Health expenditures by services and providers for 195 countries, 2000-2017.

INTRODUCTION: National Health Accounts are a significant source of health expenditure data, designed to be comprehensive and comparable across countries. However, there is currently no single repository of this data and even when compiled major gaps persist. This research aims to provide policymakers and researchers with a single repository of available national health expenditures by healthcare functions (ie, services) and providers of such services. Leveraging these data within statistical methods, a complete set of detailed health expenditures is estimated. METHODS: A methodical compilation and synthesis of all available national health expenditure reports including disaggregation by healthcare functions and providers was conducted. Using these data, a Bayesian multivariate regression analysis was implemented to estimate national-level health expenditures by the cross-classification of functions and providers for 195 countries, from 2000 to 2017. RESULTS: This research used 1662 country-years and 110 070 data points of health expenditures from existing National Health Accounts. The most detailed country-year had 52% of the categories of interest reported. Of all health functions, curative care and medical goods were estimated to make up 51.4% (uncertainty interval (UI) 33.2% to 59.4%) and 17.5% (UI 13.0% to 26.9%) of total global health expenditures in 2017, respectively. Three-quarters of the global health expenditures are allocated to three categories of providers: hospital providers (35.4%, UI 30.3% to 38.9%), providers of ambulatory care (25.5%, UI 21.1% to 28.8%) and retailers of medical goods (14.4%, UI 12.4% to 16.3%). As gross domestic product increases, countries spend more on long-term care and less on preventive care. CONCLUSION: Disaggregated estimates of health expenditures are often unavailable and unable to provide policymakers and researchers a holistic understanding of how expenditures are used. This research aggregates reported data and provides a complete time-series of estimates, with uncertainty, of health expenditures by health functions and providers between 2000 and 2017 for 195 countries.

The US Provided $13 Billion In Development Assistance For Health In 2016, Less Per Person Than Many Peer Nations.

Despite dramatic growth between 1990 and 2010, development assistance for health from high-income countries and development agencies to low- and middle-income countries has stagnated, and proposed cuts make future funding uncertain. To further understand international financial flows for health, we examined international contributions from major donor countries. Our findings showed that the United States provided more development assistance for health than any other country, but it provided less than others relative to national population, government spending, and income. Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom stand out when the provision of health assistance is considered relative to these other factors. Seventeen of twenty-three countries did not reach a target that corresponds to an international goal. If all twenty-three countries had reached this goal, an additional $13.3 billion would have been available for global health in 2016. Systematic efforts are needed to encourage countries to meet these targets. Sustained health improvement in low- and middle-income countries will benefit greatly from ongoing international support.

Assessing the Contribution of Malaria Vector Control and Other Maternal and Child Health Interventions in Reducing All-Cause Under-Five Mortality in Zambia, 1990-2010.

Under-five mortality in Zambia has declined since 1990, with reductions accelerating after 2000. Zambia's scale-up of malaria control is viewed as the driver of these gains, but past studies have not fully accounted for other potential factors. This study sought to systematically evaluate the impact of malaria vector control on under-five mortality. Using a mixed-effects regression model, we quantified the relationship between malaria vector control, other priority health interventions, and socioeconomic indicators and district-level under-five mortality trends from 1990 to 2010. We then conducted counterfactual analyses to estimate under-five mortality in the absence of scaling up malaria vector control. Throughout Zambia, increased malaria vector control coverage coincided with scaling up three other interventions: the pentavalent vaccine, exclusive breast-feeding, and prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV services. This simultaneous scale-up made statistically isolating intervention-specific impact infeasible. Instead, in combination, these interventions jointly accelerated declines in under-five mortality by 11% between 2000 and 2010. Zambia's scale-up of multiple interventions is notable, yet our findings highlight challenges in quantifying program-specific impact without better health data and information systems. As countries aim to further improve health outcomes, there is even greater need-and opportunity-to strengthen routine data systems and to develop more rigorous evaluation strategies.

Tracking development assistance for HIV/AIDS: the international response to a global epidemic.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the global response to HIV/AIDS, this study tracked development assistance for HIV/AIDS at a granular, program level. METHODS: We extracted data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's Financing Global Health 2015 report that captured development assistance for HIV/AIDS from 1990 to 2015 for all major bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. To build on these data, we extracted additional budget data, and disaggregated development assistance for HIV/AIDS into nine program areas, including prevention, treatment, and health system support. RESULTS: Since 2000, $109.8 billion of development assistance has been provided for HIV/AIDS. Between 2000 and 2010, development assistance for HIV/AIDS increased at an annualized rate of 22.8%. Since 2010, the annualized rate of growth has dropped to 1.3%. Had development assistance for HIV/AIDS continued to climb after 2010 as it had in the previous decade, $44.8 billion more in development assistance would have been available for HIV/AIDS. Since 1990, treatment and prevention were the most funded HIV/AIDS program areas receiving $24.6 billion and $22.7 billion, respectively. Since 2010, these two program areas and HIV/AIDS health system strengthening have continued to grow, marginally, with majority support from the US government and the Global Fund. An average of $252.9 of HIV/AIDS development assistance per HIV/AIDS prevalent case was disbursed between 2011 and 2013. CONCLUSION: The scale-up of development assistance for HIV/AIDS from 2000 to 2010 was unprecedented. During this period, international donors prioritized HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention, and health system support. Since 2010, funding for HIV/AIDS has plateaued.

The global financial crisis has led to a slowdown in growth of funding to improve health in many developing countries.

How has funding to developing countries for health improvement changed in the wake of the global financial crisis? The question is vital for policy making, planning, and advocacy purposes in donor and recipient countries alike. We measured the total amount of financial and in-kind assistance that flowed from both public and private channels to improve health in developing countries during the period 1990-2011. The data for the years 1990-2009 reflect disbursements, while the numbers for 2010 and 2011 are preliminary estimates. Development assistance for health continued to grow in 2011, but the rate of growth was low. We estimate that assistance for health grew by 4 percent each year from 2009 to 2011, reaching a total of $27.73 billion. This growth was largely driven by the World Bank's International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and appeared to be a deliberate strategy in response to the global economic crisis. Assistance for health from bilateral agencies grew by only 4 percent, or $444.08 million, largely because the United States slowed its development assistance for health. Health funding through UN agencies stagnated, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria announced that it would make no new grants for the next two years because of declines in funding. Given the international community's focus on meeting the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and persistent economic hardship in donor countries, continued measurement of development assistance for health is essential for policy making.