Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. METHODS: We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. FINDINGS: In 2019, health spending globally reached $8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7-8·8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5-0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0-25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and $1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34·3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. INTERPRETATION: Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Safely resuming neglected tropical disease control activities during COVID-19: Perspectives from Nigeria and Guinea.

Since its early spread in early 2020, the disease caused by the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused mass disruptions to health services. These have included interruptions to programs that aimed to prevent, control, and eliminate neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) released interim guidelines recommending the temporary cessation of mass drug administration (MDA), community-based surveys, and case detection, while encouraging continuation of morbidity management and vector control where possible. Over the course of the following months, national programs and implementing partners contributed to COVID-19 response efforts, while also beginning to plan for resumption of NTD control activities. To understand the challenges, opportunities, and recommendations for maximizing continuity of disease control during public health emergencies, we sought perspectives from Nigeria and Guinea on the process of restarting NTD control efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through semistructured interviews with individuals involved with NTD control at the local and national levels, we identified key themes and common perspectives between the 2 countries, as well as observations that were specific to each. Overall, interviewees stressed the challenges posed by COVID-19 interruptions, particularly with respect to delays to activities and related knock-on impacts, such as drug expiry and prolonged elimination timelines, as well as concerns related to funding. However, respondents in both countries also highlighted the benefits of a formal risk assessment approach, particularly in terms of encouraging information sharing and increasing coordination and advocacy. Recommendations included ensuring greater availability of historical data to allow better monitoring of how future emergencies affect NTD control progress; continuing to use risk assessment approaches in the future; and identifying mechanisms for sharing lessons learned and innovations between countries as a means of advancing postpandemic health systems and disease control capacity strengthening.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune": Researcher experiences of funder suppression of health behaviour intervention trial findings.

BACKGROUND: Governments commonly fund research with specific applications in mind. Such mechanisms may facilitate 'research translation' but funders may employ strategies that can also undermine the integrity of both science and government. We estimated the prevalence and investigated correlates of funder efforts to suppress health behaviour intervention trial findings. METHODS: Our sampling frame was lead or corresponding authors of papers (published 2007-2017) included in a Cochrane review, reporting findings from trials of interventions to improve nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, smoking, and substance use. Suppression events were based on a previous survey of public health academics. Participants answered questions concerning seven suppression events in their efforts to report the trial, e.g., [I was…] "asked to suppress certain findings as they were viewed as being unfavourable." We also examined the association between information on study funder, geographical location, targeted health behaviour, country democracy rating and age of publication with reported suppression. FINDINGS: We received responses from 104 authors (50%) of 208 eligible trials, from North America (34%), Europe (33%), Oceania (17%), and other countries (16%). Eighteen percent reported at least one of the seven suppression events relating to the trial in question. The most commonly reported suppression event was funder(s) expressing reluctance to publish because they considered the results 'unfavourable' (9% reported). We found no strong associations with the subject of research, funding source, democracy, region, or year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: One in five researchers in this global sample reported being pressured to delay, alter, or not publish the findings of health behaviour intervention trials. Regulation of funder and university practices, establishing study registries, and compulsory disclosure of funding conditions in scientific journals, are needed to protect the integrity of public-good research.

Falling living standards during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative evidence from nine developing countries.

Despite numerous journalistic accounts, systematic quantitative evidence on economic conditions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remains scarce for most low- and middle-income countries, partly due to limitations of official economic statistics in environments with large informal sectors and subsistence agriculture. We assemble evidence from over 30,000 respondents in 16 original household surveys from nine countries in Africa (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone), Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal, Philippines), and Latin America (Colombia). We document declines in employment and income in all settings beginning March 2020. The share of households experiencing an income drop ranges from 8 to 87% (median, 68%). Household coping strategies and government assistance were insufficient to sustain precrisis living standards, resulting in widespread food insecurity and dire economic conditions even 3 months into the crisis. We discuss promising policy responses and speculate about the risk of persistent adverse effects, especially among children and other vulnerable groups.

Global Fund contributions to health security in ten countries, 2014-20: mapping synergies between vertical disease programmes and capacities for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a robust vertical global health programme. The extent to which vertical programmes financially support health security has not been investigated. We, therefore, endeavoured to quantify the extent to which the budgets of this vertical programme support health security. We believe this is a crucial area of work as the global community works to combine resources for COVID-19 response and future pandemic preparedness. METHODS: We examined budgets for work in Kenya, Uganda, Vietnam, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone from January, 2014 to December, 2020. These ten countries were selected because of the robustness of investments and the availability of data. Using the International Health Regulations Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool as a framework, we mapped budget line items to health security capacities. Two researchers independently reviewed each budget and mapped items to the JEE. Budgets were then jointly reviewed until a consensus was reached regarding if an item supported health security directly, indirectly, or not at all. The budgets for the study countries were inputted into a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and line items that mapped to JEE indicators were scaled up to their respective JEE capacity. Descriptive analyses were then done to determine the total amount of money budgeted for activities that support health security, how much was budgeted for each JEE capacity, and how much of the support was direct or indirect. FINDINGS: The research team reviewed 37 budgets. Budgets totalled US$6 927 284 966, and $2 562 063 054 (37·0%) of this mapped to JEE capacities. $1 330 942 712 (19·2%) mapped directly to JEE capacities and $1 231 120 342 (17·8%) mapped indirectly to JEE capacities. Laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and the deployment of medical countermeasures and personnel received the most overall budgetary support; laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and workforce development received the greatest amount of direct budgetary support. INTERPRETATION: Over one-third of the Global Fund's work also supports health security and the organisation has budgeted more than $2 500 000 000 for activities that support health security in ten countries since 2014. Although these funds were not budgeted specifically for health security purposes, recognising how vertical programmes can synergistically support other global health efforts has important implications for policy related to health systems strengthening. FUNDING: Resolve to Save Lives: An Initiative of Vital Strategies.