The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs.

OBJECTIVES: Immunization programs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are faced with an ever-growing number of vaccines of public health importance recommended by the World Health Organization, while also financing a greater proportion of the program through domestic resources. More than ever, national immunization programs must be equipped to contextualize global guidance and make choices that are best suited to their setting. The CAPACITI decision-support tool has been developed in collaboration with national immunization program decision makers in LMICs to structure and document an evidence-based, context-specific process for prioritizing or selecting among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. METHODS: The CAPACITI decision-support tool is based on multi-criteria decision analysis, as a structured way to incorporate multiple sources of evidence and stakeholder perspectives. The tool has been developed iteratively in consultation with 12 countries across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. RESULTS: The tool is flexible to existing country processes and can follow any type of multi-criteria decision analysis or a hybrid approach. It is structured into 5 sections: decision question, criteria for decision making, evidence assessment, appraisal, and recommendation. The Excel-based tool guides the user through the steps and document discussions in a transparent manner, with an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and country ownership. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot countries valued the CAPACITI decision-support tool as a means to consider multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs and the impact of data quality. With use, it is expected that LMICs will tailor steps to their context and streamline the tool for decision making.

What is the right level of spending needed for health and care in the UK?

The health and care sector plays a valuable role in improving population health and societal wellbeing, protecting people from the financial consequences of illness, reducing health and income inequalities, and supporting economic growth. However, there is much debate regarding the appropriate level of funding for health and care in the UK. In this Health Policy paper, we look at the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical spending in the UK and comparable countries, assess the role of private spending, and review spending projections to estimate future needs. Public spending on health has increased by 3·7% a year on average since the National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 and, since then, has continued to assume a larger share of both the economy and government expenditure. In the decade before the ongoing pandemic started, the rate of growth of government spending for the health and care sector slowed. We argue that without average growth in public spending on health of at least 4% per year in real terms, there is a real risk of degradation of the NHS, reductions in coverage of benefits, increased inequalities, and increased reliance on private financing. A similar, if not higher, level of growth in public spending on social care is needed to provide high standards of care and decent terms and conditions for social care staff, alongside an immediate uplift in public spending to implement long-overdue reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission to improve financial protection. COVID-19 has highlighted major issues in the capacity and resilience of the health and care system. We recommend an independent review to examine the precise amount of additional funds that are required to better equip the UK to withstand further acute shocks and major threats to health.

Securing a sustainable and fit-for-purpose UK health and care workforce.

Approximately 13% of the total UK workforce is employed in the health and care sector. Despite substantial workforce planning efforts, the effectiveness of this planning has been criticised. Education, training, and workforce plans have typically considered each health-care profession in isolation and have not adequately responded to changing health and care needs. The results are persistent vacancies, poor morale, and low retention. Areas of particular concern highlighted in this Health Policy paper include primary care, mental health, nursing, clinical and non-clinical support, and social care. Responses to workforce shortfalls have included a high reliance on foreign and temporary staff, small-scale changes in skill mix, and enhanced recruitment drives. Impending challenges for the UK health and care workforce include growing multimorbidity, an increasing shortfall in the supply of unpaid carers, and the relative decline of the attractiveness of the National Health Service (NHS) as an employer internationally. We argue that to secure a sustainable and fit-for-purpose health and care workforce, integrated workforce approaches need to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and skill mix, as well as the trend towards multidisciplinary working. Enhancing career development opportunities, promoting staff wellbeing, and tackling discrimination in the NHS are all needed to improve recruitment, retention, and morale of staff. An urgent priority is to offer sufficient aftercare and support to staff who have been exposed to high-risk situations and traumatic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing calls to recognise and reward health and care staff, growth in pay must at least keep pace with projected rises in average earnings, which in turn will require linking future NHS funding allocations to rises in pay. Through illustrative projections, we show that, to sustain annual growth in the workforce at approximately 2·4%, increases in NHS expenditure of 4% annually in real terms will be required. Above all, a radical long-term strategic vision is needed to ensure that the future NHS workforce is fit for purpose.

Taking Care of Business: Privileging Private Sector Hospitals During the COVID Crisis.

In the early days of the COVID crisis, many commentators argued that it presented opportunities for progressive change, notably toward redress of structural inequalities in health. As with the financial slump of 2008, however, such notions have proved almost ridiculously optimistic as it has been capital, through its near symbiosis with the state, that has been best able to respond, with the English government-the devolved nations adopted a markedly different approach-taking every opportunity to ensure the pandemic has proved a bonanza for private-sector healthcare interests. However, this has not just been about individual contracts in, for example, test and trace, vaccination, or personal protective equipment; the crisis has been used to both rescue the private acute market following 2 years of contracted revenues and to provide enormous stimulus for its future growth. This has required the support of several organizations acting in concert, including the NHS Confederation and the Royal Colleges. While the pandemic has served to illuminate such relationships, the author also argues that the oft-recurring governmental praise of the NHS needs to be matched by genuine investment in public hospitals.

Lessons from the pandemic on the value of research infrastructure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed a spotlight on the resilience of healthcare systems, and their ability to cope efficiently and effectively with unexpected crises. If we are to learn one economic lesson from the pandemic, arguably it is the perils of an overfocus on short-term allocative efficiency at the price of lack of capacity to deal with uncertain future challenges. In normal times, building spare capacity with 'option value' into health systems may seem inefficient, the costs potentially exceeding the benefits. Yet the fatal weakness of not doing so is that this can leave health systems highly constrained when dealing with unexpected, but ultimately inevitable, shocks-such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue that the pandemic has highlighted the potentially enormous option value of biomedical research infrastructure. We illustrate this with reference to COVID-19 response work supported by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. As the world deals with the fallout from the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, pressure will soon come to review government expenditure, including research funding. Developing a framework to fully account for option value, and understanding the public appetite to pay for it, should allow us to be better prepared for the next emerging problem.