Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Haakenstad A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6540601 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEstimates of government spending and development assistance for tuberculosis exist, but less is known about out-of-pocket and prepaid private spending. We aimed to provide comprehensive estimates of total spending on tuberculosis in low-income and middle-income countries for 2000-17.MethodsWe extracted data on tuberculosis spending, unit costs, and health-care use from the WHO global tuberculosis database, Global Fund proposals and reports, National Health Accounts, the WHO-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project database, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Development Assistance for Health Database. We extracted data from at least one of these sources for all 135 low-income and middle-income countries using the World Bank 2019 definitions. We estimated tuberculosis spending by source and function for notified (officially reported) and non-notified tuberculosis cases separately and combined, using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to fill in for missing data and estimate uncertainty. We aggregated estimates of government, out-of-pocket, prepaid private, and development assistance spending on tuberculosis to estimate total spending in 2019 US$.FindingsTotal spending on tuberculosis in 135 low-income and middle-income countries increased annually by 3·9% (95% CI 3·0 to 4·6), from $5·7 billion (5·2 to 6·5) in 2000 to $10·9 billion (10·3 to 11·8) in 2017. Government spending increased annually by 5·1% (4·4 to 5·7) between 2000 and 2017, and reached $6·9 billion (6·5 to 7·5) or 63·5% (59·2 to 66·8) of all tuberculosis spending in 2017. Of government spending, $5·8 billion (5·6 to 6·1) was spent on notified cases. Out-of-pocket spending decreased annually by 0·8% (-2·9 to 1·3), from $2·4 billion (1·9 to 3·1) in 2000 to $2·1 billion (1·6 to 2·7) in 2017. Development assistance for country-specific spending on tuberculosis increased from $54·6 million in 2000 to $1·1 billion in 2017. Administrative costs and development assistance for global projects related to tuberculosis care increased from $85·3 million in 2000 to $576·2 million in 2017. 30 high tuberculosis burden countries of low and middle income accounted for 73·7% (71·8-75·8) of tuberculosis spending in 2017.InterpretationDespite substantial increases since 2000, funding for tuberculosis is still far short of global financing targets and out-of-pocket spending remains high in resource-constrained countries, posing a barrier to patient's access to care and treatment adherence. Of the 30 countries with a high-burden of tuberculosis, just over half were primarily funded by government, while others, especially lower-middle-income and low-income countries, were still primarily dependent on development assistance for tuberculosis or out-of-pocket health spending.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundMiddle-income countries (MICs) that are not eligible for funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, have been slow to adopt rotavirus vaccines. Few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness and benefit-risk of rotavirus vaccination in these settings. We aimed to assess the potential economic and health impact of rotavirus vaccination in 63 MICs not eligible for funding from Gavi.MethodsIn this modelling study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness and benefit-risk of rotavirus vaccination in 63 MICs not eligible to Gavi funding. We used an Excel-based proportionate outcomes model with a finely disaggregated age structure to estimate the number of rotavirus gastroenteritis cases, clinic visits, hospitalisations, and deaths averted by vaccination in children younger than 5 years over a 10-year period. We calculated cost-effectiveness ratios (costs per disability-adjusted life-years averted compared with no vaccination) and benefit-risk ratios (number of hospitalisations due to rotavirus gastroenteritis averted per excess hospitalisations due to intussusception). We evaluated three alternative vaccines available globally (Rotarix, Rotavac, and Rotasiil) and used information from vaccine manufacturers regarding anticipated vaccine prices. We ran deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses.FindingsOver the period 2020-29, rotavirus vaccines could avert 77 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 51-103) cases of rotavirus gastroenteritis and 21 million (12-36) clinic visits, 3 million (1·4-5·6) hospitalisations, and 37 900 (25 900-55 900) deaths due to rotavirus gastroenteritis in 63 MICs not eligible for Gavi support. From a government perspective, rotavirus vaccination would be cost-effective in 48 (77%) of 62 MICs considered. The benefit-risk ratio for hospitalisations prevented versus those potentially caused by vaccination exceeded 250:1 in all countries.InterpretationIn most MICs not eligible for Gavi funding, rotavirus vaccination has high probability to be cost-effective with a favourable benefit-risk profile. Policy makers should consider this new evidence when making or revisiting decisions on the use of rotavirus vaccines in their respective countries.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.