Dataset Information

Tracking spending on malaria by source in 106 countries, 2000-16: an economic modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sustaining achievements in malaria control and making progress toward malaria elimination requires coordinated funding. We estimated domestic malaria spending by source in 106 countries that were malaria-endemic in 2000-16 or became malaria-free after 2000.

Methods

We collected 36 038 datapoints reporting government, out-of-pocket (OOP), and prepaid private malaria spending, as well as malaria treatment-seeking, costs of patient care, and drug prices. We estimated government spending on patient care for malaria, which was added to government spending by national malaria control programmes. For OOP malaria spending, we used data reported in National Health Accounts and estimated OOP spending on treatment. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression was used to ensure estimates were complete and comparable across time and to generate uncertainty.

Findings

In 2016, US$4·3 billion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 4·2-4·4) was spent on malaria worldwide, an 8·5% (95% UI 8·1-8·9) per year increase over spending in 2000. Since 2000, OOP spending increased 3·8% (3·3-4·2) per year, amounting to $556 million (487-634) or 13·0% (11·6-14·5) of all malaria spending in 2016. Governments spent $1·2 billion (1·1-1·3) or 28·2% (27·1-29·3) of all malaria spending in 2016, increasing 4·0% annually since 2000. The source of malaria spending varied depending on whether countries were in the malaria control or elimination stage.

Interpretation

Tracking global malaria spending provides insight into how far the world is from reaching the malaria funding target of $6·6 billion annually by 2020. Because most countries with a high burden of malaria are low income or lower-middle income, mobilising additional government resources for malaria might be challenging.

Funding

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Haakenstad A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6595179 | 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:BackgroundBetween 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.MethodsWe 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$.FindingsBetween 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).InterpretationSome 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.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:To date, non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) have been the mainstay for controlling the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While NPIs are effective in preventing health systems overload, these long-term measures are likely to have significant adverse economic consequences. Therefore, many countries are currently considering to lift the NPIs-increasing the likelihood of disease resurgence. In this regard, dynamic NPIs, with intervals of relaxed social distancing, may provide a more suitable alternative. However, the ideal frequency and duration of intermittent NPIs, and the ideal "break" when interventions can be temporarily relaxed, remain uncertain, especially in resource-poor settings. We employed a multivariate prediction model, based on up-to-date transmission and clinical parameters, to simulate outbreak trajectories in 16 countries, from diverse regions and economic categories. In each country, we then modelled the impacts on intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and deaths over an 18-month period for following scenarios: (1) no intervention, (2) consecutive cycles of mitigation measures followed by a relaxation period, and (3) consecutive cycles of suppression measures followed by a relaxation period. We defined these dynamic interventions based on reduction of the mean reproduction number during each cycle, assuming a basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2 for no intervention, and subsequent effective reproduction numbers (R) of 0.8 and 0.5 for illustrative dynamic mitigation and suppression interventions, respectively. We found that dynamic cycles of 50-day mitigation followed by a 30-day relaxation reduced transmission, however, were unsuccessful in lowering ICU hospitalizations below manageable limits. By contrast, dynamic cycles of 50-day suppression followed by a 30-day relaxation kept the ICU demands below the national capacities. Additionally, we estimated that a significant number of new infections and deaths, especially in resource-poor countries, would be averted if these dynamic suppression measures were kept in place over an 18-month period. This multi-country analysis demonstrates that intermittent reductions of R below 1 through a potential combination of suppression interventions and relaxation can be an effective strategy for COVID-19 pandemic control. Such a "schedule" of social distancing might be particularly relevant to low-income countries, where a single, prolonged suppression intervention is unsustainable. Efficient implementation of dynamic suppression interventions, therefore, confers a pragmatic option to: (1) prevent critical care overload and deaths, (2) gain time to develop preventive and clinical measures, and (3) reduce economic hardship globally.