We need a NICE for global development spending.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chalkidou K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5558097 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
We need a NICE for global development spending.
Chalkidou Kalipso K Culyer Anthony J AJ Glassman Amanda A Li Ryan R
F1000Research 20170725
With aid budgets shrinking in richer countries and more money for healthcare becoming available from domestic sources in poorer ones, the rhetoric of value for money or improved efficiency of aid spending is increasing. Taking healthcare as one example, we discuss the need for and potential benefits of (and obstacles to) the establishment of a national institute for aid effectiveness. In the case of the UK, such an institute would help improve development spending decisions made by DFID, the cou ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Group A Streptococcus (Strep A) leads to 600,000 deaths and 600 million cases of pharyngitis annually. Although long a promising target for vaccine development, how much funding should be allocated to develop a Strep A vaccine is unclear. We aim to calculate the optimal amount of global spending for Strep A vaccine development, the resulting benefits, and the social rate of return on this spending. We develop a model of optimal spending, from a global societal perspective, on research and development (R&D) for vaccines and treatments. The model takes as inputs total harm from the disease, the probability an R&D project succeeds, the cost of a project, and the fraction of total harm a success alleviates. Based on these inputs the model outputs an optimal amount of spending and a rate of return. We calibrate the model for Strep A. Optimal spending is estimated to be 2020 USD33 billion. This spending leads to 2020 USD1.63 trillion in benefits and a real return of 22.3% per year for thirty years. Sensitivity shows an optimal spending range of 15.9 billion to 58.5 billion, a benefits range of 1.6 trillion to 37.9 trillion, and a return range of 18.0–48.2%. Investment in a Strep A vaccine could create enormous benefits for comparatively little cost. It represents one of the highest return uses of public spending. Policy can promote Strep A vaccine development through direct funding of projects and by promoting financial mechanisms that allow the private sector to diversify its R&D investment.
| S-EPMC10125865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in health surveillance systems, disease prevention, and treatment globally. Among the many factors that might have led to these gaps is the issue of the financing of national health systems, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as a robust global system for pandemic preparedness. We aimed to provide a comparative assessment of global health spending at the onset of the pandemic; characterise the amount of development assistance for pandemic preparedness and response disbursed in the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic; and examine expectations for future health spending and put into context the expected need for investment in pandemic preparedness.MethodsIn this analysis of global health spending between 1990 and 2021, and prediction from 2021 to 2026, we estimated four sources of health spending: development assistance for health (DAH), government spending, out-of-pocket spending, and prepaid private spending across 204 countries and territories. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) to estimate spending. We estimated development assistance for general health, COVID-19 response, and pandemic preparedness and response using a keyword search. Health spending estimates were combined with estimates of resources needed for pandemic prevention and preparedness to analyse future health spending patterns, relative to need.FindingsIn 2019, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, US$9·2 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·1-9·3) was spent on health worldwide. We found great disparities in the amount of resources devoted to health, with high-income countries spending $7·3 trillion (95% UI 7·2-7·4) in 2019; 293·7 times the $24·8 billion (95% UI 24·3-25·3) spent by low-income countries in 2019. That same year, $43·1 billion in development assistance was provided to maintain or improve health. The pandemic led to an unprecedented increase in development assistance targeted towards health; in 2020 and 2021, $1·8 billion in DAH contributions was provided towards pandemic preparedness in LMICs, and $37·8 billion was provided for the health-related COVID-19 response. Although the support for pandemic preparedness is 12·2% of the recommended target by the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP), the support provided for the health-related COVID-19 response is 252·2% of the recommended target. Additionally, projected spending estimates suggest that between 2022 and 2026, governments in 17 (95% UI 11-21) of the 137 LMICs will observe an increase in national government health spending equivalent to an addition of 1% of GDP, as recommended by the HLIP.InterpretationThere was an unprecedented scale-up in DAH in 2020 and 2021. We have a unique opportunity at this time to sustain funding for crucial global health functions, including pandemic preparedness. However, historical patterns of underfunding of pandemic preparedness suggest that deliberate effort must be made to ensure funding is maintained.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC9998276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.
| S-EPMC2359771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether Medicaid home care spending reduces the proportion of the disabled elderly population who do not get help with personal care.Data sourcesData on Medicaid home care spending per poor elderly person in each state is merged with data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 1992, 1996, and 2000. The sample (n=6,067) includes elderly persons living in the community who have at least one limitation in activities of daily living (ADLs).Study designUsing a repeated cross-section analysis, the probability of not getting help with an ADL is estimated as a function of Medicaid home care spending, individual income, interactions between income and spending, and a set of individual characteristics. Because Medicaid home care spending is targeted at the low-income population, it is not expected to affect the population with higher incomes. We exploit this difference by using higher-income groups as comparison groups to assess whether unobserved state characteristics bias the estimates.Principal findingsAmong the low-income disabled elderly, the probability of not receiving help with an ADL limitation is about 10 percentage points lower in states in the top quartile of per capita Medicaid home care spending than in other states. No such association is observed in higher-income groups. These results are robust to a set of sensitivity analyses of the methods.ConclusionThese findings should reassure state and federal policymakers considering expanding Medicaid home care programs that they do deliver services to low-income people with long-term care needs and reduce the percent of those who are not getting help.
| S-EPMC2323131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPopulation-based global payment gives health care providers a spending target for the care of a defined group of patients. We examined changes in spending, utilization, and quality through 8 years of the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC) of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts, a population-based payment model that includes financial rewards and penalties (two-sided risk).MethodsUsing a difference-in-differences method to analyze data from 2006 through 2016, we compared spending among enrollees whose physician organizations entered the AQC starting in 2009 with spending among privately insured enrollees in control states. We examined quantities of sentinel services using an analogous approach. We then compared process and outcome quality measures with averages in New England and the United States.ResultsDuring the 8-year post-intervention period from 2009 to 2016, the increase in the average annual medical spending on claims for the enrollees in organizations that entered the AQC in 2009 was $461 lower per enrollee than spending in the control states (P<0.001), an 11.7% relative savings on claims. Savings on claims were driven in the early years by lower prices and in the later years by lower utilization of services, including use of laboratory testing, certain imaging tests, and emergency department visits. Most quality measures of processes and outcomes improved more in the AQC cohorts than they did in New England and the nation in unadjusted analyses. Savings were generally larger among subpopulations that were enrolled longer. Enrollees of organizations that entered the AQC in 2010, 2011, and 2012 had medical claims savings of 11.9%, 6.9%, and 2.3%, respectively, by 2016. The savings for the 2012 cohort were statistically less precise than those for the other cohorts. In the later years of the initial AQC cohorts and across the years of the later-entry cohorts, the savings on claims exceeded incentive payments, which included quality bonuses and providers' share of the savings below spending targets.ConclusionsDuring the first 8 years after its introduction, the BCBS population-based payment model was associated with slower growth in medical spending on claims, resulting in savings that over time began to exceed incentive payments. Unadjusted measures of quality under this model were higher than or similar to average regional and national quality measures. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).
| S-EPMC6733755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to 'only in research' (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use ('approval with research' or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made.ObjectivesThis study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions.MethodsDraft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required.ResultsIn total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process.ConclusionNICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.
| S-EPMC3561612 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7180045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Comparable estimates of health spending are crucial for the assessment of health systems and to optimally deploy health resources. The methods used to track health spending continue to evolve, but little is known about the distribution of spending across diseases. We developed improved estimates of health spending by source, including development assistance for health, and, for the first time, estimated HIV/AIDS spending on prevention and treatment and by source of funding, for 188 countries. METHODS:We collected published data on domestic health spending, from 1995 to 2015, from a diverse set of international agencies. We tracked development assistance for health from 1990 to 2017. We also extracted 5385 datapoints about HIV/AIDS spending, between 2000 and 2015, from online databases, country reports, and proposals submitted to multilateral organisations. We used spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to generate complete and comparable estimates for health and HIV/AIDS spending. We report most estimates in 2017 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars and adjust all estimates for the effect of inflation. FINDINGS:Between 1995 and 2015, global health spending per capita grew at an annualised rate of 3·1% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1 to 3·2), with growth being largest in upper-middle-income countries (5·4% per capita [UI 5·3-5·5]) and lower-middle-income countries (4·2% per capita [4·2-4·3]). In 2015, $9·7 trillion (9·7 trillion to 9·8 trillion) was spent on health worldwide. High-income countries spent $6·5 trillion (6·4 trillion to 6·5 trillion) or 66·3% (66·0 to 66·5) of the total in 2015, whereas low-income countries spent $70·3 billion (69·3 billion to 71·3 billion) or 0·7% (0·7 to 0·7). Between 1990 and 2017, development assistance for health increased by 394·7% ($29·9 billion), with an estimated $37·4 billion of development assistance being disbursed for health in 2017, of which $9·1 billion (24·2%) targeted HIV/AIDS. Between 2000 and 2015, $562·6 billion (531·1 billion to 621·9 billion) was spent on HIV/AIDS worldwide. Governments financed 57·6% (52·0 to 60·8) of that total. Global HIV/AIDS spending peaked at 49·7 billion (46·2-54·7) in 2013, decreasing to $48·9 billion (45·2 billion to 54·2 billion) in 2015. That year, low-income and lower-middle-income countries represented 74·6% of all HIV/AIDS disability-adjusted life-years, but just 36·6% (34·4 to 38·7) of total HIV/AIDS spending. In 2015, $9·3 billion (8·5 billion to 10·4 billion) or 19·0% (17·6 to 20·6) of HIV/AIDS financing was spent on prevention, and $27·3 billion (24·5 billion to 31·1 billion) or 55·8% (53·3 to 57·9) was dedicated to care and treatment. INTERPRETATION:From 1995 to 2015, total health spending increased worldwide, with the fastest per capita growth in middle-income countries. While these national disparities are relatively well known, low-income countries spent less per person on health and HIV/AIDS than did high-income and middle-income countries. Furthermore, declines in development assistance for health continue, including for HIV/AIDS. Additional cuts to development assistance could hasten this decline, and risk slowing progress towards global and national goals. FUNDING:The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC5946845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The End TB Strategy places great emphasis on increasing social protection and poverty alleviation programmes. However, the role of social protection on controlling tuberculosis has not been examined fully. We analysed the association between social protection spending and tuberculosis prevalence, incidence, and mortality globally.We used publicly available data from WHO's Global Tuberculosis Programme for tuberculosis burden in terms of yearly incidence, prevalence, and mortality per 100,000 people, and social protection data from the International Labour Organization (ILO), expressed as the percentage of national gross domestic product (GDP) spent on social protection programmes (excluding health). Data from ILO were from 146 countries covering the years between 2000 and 2012. We used descriptive assessments to examine levels of social protection and tuberculosis burden for each country, then used these assessments to inform our fully adjusted multivariate regression models. Our models controlled for economic output, adult HIV prevalence, health expenditure, population density, the percentage of foreign-born residents, and the strength of the national tuberculosis treatment programme, and also incorporated a country-level fixed effect to adjust for clustering of datapoints within countries.Overall, social protection spending levels were inversely associated with tuberculosis prevalence, incidence, and mortality. For a country spending 0% of their GDP on social protection, moving to spending 1% of their GDP was associated with a change of -18·33 per 100,000 people (95% CI -32·10 to -4·60; p=0·009) in prevalence, -8·16 per 100,000 people (-16·00 to -0·27; p=0·043) in incidence, and -5·48 per 100,000 people (-9·34 to -1·62; p=0·006) in mortality. This association was mitigated at higher levels of social protection spending, and lost significance when more than 11% of GDP was spent.Our findings suggest that investments in social protection could contribute to a reduced tuberculosis burden, especially in countries that are investing a small proportion of their GDP in this area. However, further research is needed to support these ecological associations.National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Science (University of California, Los Angeles [CA, USA] Clinical and Translational Science Institute).
| S-EPMC4834192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Spending and quality under global budgets remain unknown beyond 2 years. We evaluated spending and quality measures during the first 4 years of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Alternative Quality Contract (AQC).We compared spending and quality among enrollees whose physician organizations entered the AQC from 2009 through 2012 with those among persons in control states. We studied spending changes according to year, category of service, site of care, experience managing risk contracts, and price versus utilization. We evaluated process and outcome quality.In the 2009 AQC cohort, medical spending on claims grew an average of $62.21 per enrollee per quarter less than it did in the control cohort over the 4-year period (P<0.001). This amount is equivalent to a 6.8% savings when calculated as a proportion of the average post-AQC spending level in the 2009 AQC cohort. Analogously, the 2010, 2011, and 2012 cohorts had average savings of 8.8% (P<0.001), 9.1% (P<0.001), and 5.8% (P=0.04), respectively, by the end of 2012. Claims savings were concentrated in the outpatient-facility setting and in procedures, imaging, and tests, explained by both reduced prices and reduced utilization. Claims savings were exceeded by incentive payments to providers during the period from 2009 through 2011 but exceeded incentive payments in 2012, generating net savings. Improvements in quality among AQC cohorts generally exceeded those seen elsewhere in New England and nationally.As compared with similar populations in other states, Massachusetts AQC enrollees had lower spending growth and generally greater quality improvements after 4 years. Although other factors in Massachusetts may have contributed, particularly in the later part of the study period, global budget contracts with quality incentives may encourage changes in practice patterns that help reduce spending and improve quality. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund and others.).
| S-EPMC4261926 | biostudies-literature