Dataset Information

Government Health and Social Services Spending Show Evidence of Single-Sector Rather Than Multi-Sector Pursuit of Population Health.

ABSTRACT: Population health improvements can be achieved through work made possible by government spending on health care, public health, and social services. The extent to which spending allocations across these sectors is synergistic with or trade-off against one another is unknown. Achieving a balanced portfolio with multi-sector contributions is key to improving health outcomes. This study tested competing hypotheses regarding achievement of balanced multi-sector resources for health. County-level U.S. Census Bureau data on all local governmental spending measured each county's average per capita local government spending for public hospitals, public health, social services, and education. American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey data on hospital community health service provision were used to calculate an index of hospital community service provision aggregated to county level by year. County Health Rankings data measured each county's health outcomes and health factors. Longitudinal mixed-effects regression models (n = 1877 counties) predicted changes in spending for each government spending category based on two sets of predictors (government spending vs community health services and needs) from current and prior year. Models account for average spending in each category and county-, state-, and time-trends. Models showed that spending increases in each of the four spending categories examined (public hospitals, public health, social services, and education) were not associated with changes in spending across other categories in current or prior years. For all categories, an increase from baseline spending levels in Year 1 was always significantly associated with an increase from baseline spending level in that same category in Year 2 (ie, spending stayed above baseline in Year 2). Multi-sector initiatives to health outcomes require funding across sectors, yet there was little evidence to suggest that communities that invest in public hospitals, public health, or other social services see commensurate increases in other areas. Underlying funding decisions may reflect strategic decisions within a community to scale up single sectors, constrained resources for multi-sector scale up, or a host of additional factors not measured here.

SUBMITTER: McCullough JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6566469 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Government Health and Social Services Spending Show Evidence of Single-Sector Rather Than Multi-Sector Pursuit of Population Health.

McCullough J Mac JM

Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing 20190101

Population health improvements can be achieved through work made possible by government spending on health care, public health, and social services. The extent to which spending allocations across these sectors is synergistic with or trade-off against one another is unknown. Achieving a balanced portfolio with multi-sector contributions is key to improving health outcomes. This study tested competing hypotheses regarding achievement of balanced multi-sector resources for health. County-level U.S ...[more]

PMID: 31189382

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver the past decade, there have been significant and unequal cuts to local authority (LA) budgets, across England. Cultural, environmental and planning (CEP) budgets have been cut by 17% between 2011 and 2019. This funding supports services such as parks, leisure centres, community development and libraries, all of which have potential to influence population mental health. We therefore investigated whether cuts to CEP services have affected mental health outcomes and the extent to which they have contributed to mental health inequalities between areas.MethodsUsing fixed effects regression applied to longitudinal LA-level panel data in England, we assessed whether trends in CEP spend were associated with trends in mental health outcomes, between 2011 and 2019. The exposure was CEP spend and the primary outcome was the LA-average Small Area Mental Health Index (SAMHI). Additionally, we considered subcategories of CEP spend as secondary exposures, and antidepressant prescription rate and self-reported anxiety levels as secondary outcomes, both aggregated to LA-level. We adjusted all models for confounders and conducted subgroup analysis to examine differential mental health effects of spending cuts based on the level of area deprivation.ResultsThe average decrease in CEP spend of 15% over the period was associated with a 0.036 (95% CI: 0.005, 0.067) increase in SAMHI score, indicating worsening mental health. Amongst subcategories of CEP spending, cuts to planning and development services impacted mental health trends the most, with a 15% reduction in spend associated with a 0.018 (95% CI: 0.005, 0.031) increase in the SAMHI score. The association between cuts in CEP and deteriorating mental health was greater in more affluent areas.ConclusionCuts to spending on cultural, environmental, planning and development services were associated with worsening population mental health in England. Impacts were driven by cuts to planning and development services in particular. Reinvesting in these services may contribute to improved public mental health.

Project description:BackgroundCoverage 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsRoutine 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.ImplicationsOverall, 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of government health data for secondary purposes, such as monitoring the quality of hospital services, researching the health needs of populations, and testing how well new treatments work, is increasing. This increase in the secondary uses of health data has led to increased interest in what the public thinks about data sharing, in particular, the possibilities of sharing with the private sector for research and development. Although international evidence demonstrates broad public support for the secondary use of health data, this support does not extend to sharing health data with the private sector. If governments intend to share health data with the private sector, knowing what the public thinks will be important. This paper reports a national survey to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing health data with private companies for research on and development of therapeutic drugs and medical devices.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing government health data with the private sector.MethodsA web-based survey tool was developed to assess attitudes about sharing government health data with the private sector. A market research company was employed to administer the web-based survey in June 2019.ResultsThe survey was completed by 2537 individuals residing in Australia. Between 51.8% and 57.98% of all participants were willing to share their data, with slightly fewer in favor of sharing to improve health services (51.99%) and a slightly higher proportion in favor of sharing for research and development (57.98%). There was a preference for opt-in consent (53.44%) and broad support for placing conditions on sharing health information with private companies (62% to 91.99%). Wide variability was also observed in participants' views about the extent to which the private sector could be trusted and how well they would behave if entrusted with people's health information. In their qualitative responses, the participants noted concerns about private sector corporate interests, corruption, and profit making and expressed doubt about the Australian government's capacity to manage data sharing safely. The percentages presented are adjusted against the Australian population.ConclusionsThis nationally representative survey provides preliminary evidence that Australians are uncertain about sharing their health data with the private sector. Although just over half of all the respondents supported sharing health data with the private sector, there was also strong support for strict conditions on sharing data and for opt-in consent and significant concerns about how well the private sector would manage government health data. Addressing public concern about sharing government health data with the private sector will require more and better engagement to build community understanding about how agencies can collect, share, protect, and use their personal data.

Project description:ObjectiveDespite provision of accreditation of private sector health providers in government-led schemes for maternity services in India, their participation has been low. This has led to an underutilisation of their presence, resources and expertise for providing quality maternal and newborn health services. This study explores the perception of various stakeholders on expectations, benefits, barriers and facilitators to private sector participation in government-led schemes-specifically Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY)-for maternity service delivery.DesignNarrative-based qualitative study. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with study participants. The interviews were transcribed, translated and analysed using a reflexive and inductive approach to allow codes, categories and themes to emerge from within the data.SettingPrivate obstetricians, government health officials and FOGSI (Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India) members, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, India.ParticipantsEighteen purposefully selected private obstetricians from 9 cities across states of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand, 11 government health officials and 2 FOGSI members.ResultsThe major factors serving as barriers to participation of private practitioners in JSY-which emerged on thematic analysis-were low reimbursement amounts, delayed reimbursements, process of interaction with the government and administrative issues, previous experiences and trust deficit, lack of clarity on the accreditation process and patient-level barriers. On the other hand, factors which were facilitators to participation of private practitioners were ease of process, better communication, branding, motivation of increasing clientele as well as satisfaction of doing social service.ConclusionFactors such as financial processes and administrative delays, mistrust between the stakeholders, ambiguity in processes, lack of transparency and lack of ease in the process of empanelment of private sector are hindering effective public-private partnerships under JSY. Simplifying and strengthening the processes, communication strategies and branding can help revitalise it.

Project description:BackgroundSustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to "ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages". While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available.MethodsWe estimated domestic health spending, disaggregated by source (government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private) from 1995 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. For disease-specific health spending, we estimated spending for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis for 135 low-income and middle-income countries, and malaria in 106 malaria-endemic countries, from 2000 to 2017. We also estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2019, by source, disbursing development agency, recipient, and health focus area, including DAH for pandemic preparedness. Finally, we estimated future health spending for 195 countries and territories from 2018 until 2030. We report all spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2019 US$, unless otherwise stated.FindingsSince the development and implementation of the SDGs in 2015, global health spending has increased, reaching $7·9 trillion (95% uncertainty interval 7·8-8·0) in 2017 and is expected to increase to $11·0 trillion (10·7-11·2) by 2030. In 2017, in low-income and middle-income countries spending on HIV/AIDS was $20·2 billion (17·0-25·0) and on tuberculosis it was $10·9 billion (10·3-11·8), and in malaria-endemic countries spending on malaria was $5·1 billion (4·9-5·4). Development assistance for health was $40·6 billion in 2019 and HIV/AIDS has been the health focus area to receive the highest contribution since 2004. In 2019, $374 million of DAH was provided for pandemic preparedness, less than 1% of DAH. Although spending has increased across HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria since 2015, spending has not increased in all countries, and outcomes in terms of prevalence, incidence, and per-capita spending have been mixed. The proportion of health spending from pooled sources is expected to increase from 81·6% (81·6-81·7) in 2015 to 83·1% (82·8-83·3) in 2030.InterpretationHealth spending on SDG3 priority areas has increased, but not in all countries, and progress towards meeting the SDG3 targets has been mixed and has varied by country and by target. The evidence on the scale-up of spending and improvements in health outcomes suggest a nuanced relationship, such that increases in spending do not always results in improvements in outcomes. Although countries will probably need more resources to achieve SDG3, other constraints in the broader health system such as inefficient allocation of resources across interventions and populations, weak governance systems, human resource shortages, and drug shortages, will also need to be addressed.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundThe amount of resources, particularly prepaid resources, available for health can affect access to health care and health outcomes. Although health spending tends to increase with economic development, tremendous variation exists among health financing systems. Estimates of future spending can be beneficial for policy makers and planners, and can identify financing gaps. In this study, we estimate future gross domestic product (GDP), all-sector government spending, and health spending disaggregated by source, and we compare expected future spending to potential future spending.MethodsWe extracted GDP, government spending in 184 countries from 1980-2015, and health spend data from 1995-2014. We used a series of ensemble models to estimate future GDP, all-sector government spending, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending through 2040. We used frontier analyses to identify patterns exhibited by the countries that dedicate the most funding to health, and used these frontiers to estimate potential health spending for each low-income or middle-income country. All estimates are inflation and purchasing power adjusted.FindingsWe estimated that global spending on health will increase from US$9·21 trillion in 2014 to $24·24 trillion (uncertainty interval [UI] 20·47-29·72) in 2040. We expect per capita health spending to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 5·3% (UI 4·1-6·8) per year. This growth is driven by continued growth in GDP, government spending, and government health spending. Lower-middle income countries are expected to grow at 4·2% (3·8-4·9). High-income countries are expected to grow at 2·1% (UI 1·8-2·4) and low-income countries are expected to grow at 1·8% (1·0-2·8). Despite this growth, health spending per capita in low-income countries is expected to remain low, at $154 (UI 133-181) per capita in 2030 and $195 (157-258) per capita in 2040. Increases in national health spending to reach the level of the countries who spend the most on health, relative to their level of economic development, would mean $321 (157-258) per capita was available for health in 2040 in low-income countries.InterpretationHealth spending is associated with economic development but past trends and relationships suggest that spending will remain variable, and low in some low-resource settings. Policy change could lead to increased health spending, although for the poorest countries external support might remain essential.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

Government Health and Social Services Spending Show Evidence of Single-Sector Rather Than Multi-Sector Pursuit of Population Health.

Publications

Government Health and Social Services Spending Show Evidence of Single-Sector Rather Than Multi-Sector Pursuit of Population Health.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets