Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 126
Filter
2.
Am J Nurs ; 123(3): 14, 2023 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2326699

ABSTRACT

As government subsidies run out, costs will fall on insurers and patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Vaccination , Financing, Government
3.
Int J Equity Health ; 22(1): 59, 2023 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2309553

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Poverty vulnerability has been defined as the likelihood of a family falling into poverty in the upcoming months. Inequality is a major cause of poverty vulnerability in developing countries. There is evidence that establishing effective government subsidies and public service mechanisms significantly reduces health poverty vulnerability. One of the ways to study poverty vulnerability is by using empirical data such as income elasticity of demand to perform the analysis. Income elasticity refers to the extent to which changes in consumers' income affect changes in demand for commodities or public goods. In this work, we assess health poverty vulnerability in rural and urban China. We provide two levels of evidence on the marginal effects of the design and implementation of government subsidies and public mechanisms in reducing health poverty vulnerability, before and after incorporating the income elasticity of demand for health. METHODS: Multidimensional physical and mental health poverty indexes, according to the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative and the Andersen model, were implemented to measure health poverty vulnerability by using the 2018 China Family Panel Survey database (CFPS) as the data source for empirical analysis. The income elasticity of demand for health care was used as the key mediating variable of impact. Our assessment was conducted by a two-level multidimensional logistic regression using STATA16 software. RESULTS: The first level regression indicates that the marginal utility of public mechanism (PM) in reducing urban and rural vulnerability as expected poverty on physical and mental health (VEP-PH&MH) was insignificant. On the other hand, government subsidies (GS) policies had a positive suppression effect on VEP-PH&MH to a relatively low degree. The second level regression found that given the diversity of health needs across individual households, i.e., the income elasticity of demand (HE) for health care products, PM and GS policies have a significant effect in reducing VEP-PH&MH in rural and urban areas. Our analysis has verified the significant positive impact of enacting accurate GS and PM policies on effectively reducing VEP-PH&MH in rural as well as urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that implementing government subsidies and public mechanisms has a positive marginal effect on reducing VEP-PH&MH. Meanwhile, there are individual variations in health demands, urban-rural disparities, and regional disparities in the effects of GS and PM on inhibiting VEP-PH&MH. Therefore, special consideration needs to be given to the differences in the degree of health needs of individual residents among urban and rural areas and regions with varying economic development. Furthermore, considerations of this approach in the current worldwide scenario are analyzed.


Subject(s)
Mental Health , Poverty , Humans , Income , Delivery of Health Care , Rural Population , Financing, Government , China
4.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ; 30(23): 63811-63824, 2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2294860

ABSTRACT

The research intends to investigate the green financing trends movement with renewable energy dependence of G-20 economies. The data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique explains research results and illustrates current topicality. The Wald econometric method is utilized for robustness analysis, and a comparative picture of public support is provided. The research demonstrated that green financing metrics are significantly affected by public support during the COVID-19 crisis. Due to the volatility of COVID-19, public assistance funding plays an uneven role in green finance. G-20 member nations financed 17% of total green financing using public funds, which contributed 4% to GDP and achieved 16% of annual energy dependence improvement due to COVID-19 and 24% additional production from renewable energy resources. The results of this research demand maximal support by using positions in the government, ministries in charge of energy efficiency, and departments for energy efficiency improvement. Several possible policy interventions are discussed in this paper that may increase renewable energy efficiency via several alternative approaches, including on-bill financing, direct efficiency grant, guaranteed energy efficiency contracts, and credit lines for energy efficiency. If recommended policies are implemented successfully, they are expected to reduce the crisis' impact and elevate funding for energy efficiency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Health Expenditures , Renewable Energy , Financing, Government , Government , Economic Development , Carbon Dioxide
5.
Int J Health Plann Manage ; 38(3): 847-872, 2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2266136

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This article aims to explore the areas of misalignment between the public financial management (PFM) and health financing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: To the best of our knowledge, it is the first study on South Asian countries to adopt a framework and bring forward the dominant themes that cause the misalignment between PFM and health financing. The timing of the research was excellent as the world was facing the biggest health challenge in the form of COVID-19 which has put pressure on the PFM and has seriously hampered health service delivery. Therefore, the findings of the study are helpful for the ministry of health to draft policies to improve health allocations and move towards Universal Health Coverage. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In-depth semi-structured interviews of 15 participants were used to explore the areas of misalignment between PFM and health financing. Based on qualitative data, thematic content analysis has been carried out. FINDINGS: The findings of the study can be divided into five clusters and their explanations. First overall budget allocation has an impact on the health sector budget. For example, the budget for priority health interventions is not reflected in the budget allocation process. Further, the budget is classified by inputs rather than disease and finally, the budget is not released by the health priorities. The second cluster was the devolution of health to provinces which is unfinished agenda. Under this cluster fiscal decentralisation has been found to cause problems for the provinces as they have not provided fiscal autonomy to spend the money and there is a lack of coordination between the federal and provincial authorities. The third cluster was donor funding, and it was observed that it is not aligned with the government policies and priorities. Forth cluster was procurement and it was discovered that it is a lengthy process and caused delays in procuring the essential health equipment. The fifth cluster was an organisational culture that is not conducive to the health sector. Under this cluster, the attitude, knowledge, and practices of departments responsible for the health sector require complete revamping.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Financial Management , Humans , Healthcare Financing , Pakistan , Pandemics , Financing, Government
7.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ; 30(18): 53977-53996, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2269141

ABSTRACT

We use a variety of organization-level datasets to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the nations for the coronavirus epidemic. COVID-19 subsidies appear to have saved a significant number of jobs and maintained economic activity during the first wave of the epidemic, according to conclusions drawn from the experiences of EU member countries. General allocation rules may yield near-optimal outcomes in favor of allocation, as firms with high ecological footprints or zombie firms have lower access to government financing than more favorable, commercially owned, and export-inclination firms. Our assumptions show that the pandemic has a considerable negative impact on firm earnings and the percentage of illiquid and non-profitable businesses. Although they are statistically significant, government wage subsidies have a modest impact on corporate losses compared to the magnitude of the economic shock. Larger enterprises, which receive a lesser proportion of the aid, have more room to increase their trade liabilities or liabilities to linked entities. In contrast, according to our estimations, SMEs stand a greater danger of insolvency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Commerce , Financing, Government , Income , Pandemics
9.
Lancet Glob Health ; 11(3): e385-e413, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2211782

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: In 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. FINDINGS: In 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. INTERPRETATION: There 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. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Financing, Government , Developing Countries , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Expenditures , Global Health
10.
Lancet ; 398(10308): 1317-1343, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184616

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Developing Countries/economics , Economic Development , Healthcare Financing , International Agencies/economics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Financing, Government/economics , Financing, Government/organization & administration , Global Health/economics , Government Programs/economics , Government Programs/organization & administration , Government Programs/statistics & numerical data , Government Programs/trends , Gross Domestic Product , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Health Expenditures/trends , Humans , International Agencies/organization & administration , International Cooperation
11.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 42(1): 94-104, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2197201

ABSTRACT

We estimated immunization program costs, financing, and funding gaps for sixteen vaccines among ninety-four low- and middle-income countries during the period 2011-30. Inputs were obtained from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the 2020 Decade of Vaccine Economics costing analysis, the World Health Organization, Gavi, and the United Nations Children's Fund. We found a total funding gap of $38.4 billion between 2011 and 2030, with the cost of immunization delivery being the main driver (86 percent) of the funding gap. On average, government financing of vaccination programs steadily rises throughout the period. However, the decline in both Gavi and development assistance for health (DAH) financing anticipated between 2011 and 2030 outpaces the forecasted increases in domestic government immunization spending. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied to both the costing and the scenario analyses to address uncertainty in the financing of vaccines and vaccine delivery. The results highlight a narrowing gap for vaccine acquisition but a growing gap for vaccine delivery, which emphasizes the critical need for resource mobilization and sustainable financial strategies for immunization programs at national and global levels, as well as a need to address the COVID-19 pandemic's potential effects on government financing for vaccines between 2021 and 2030.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Child , Humans , Developing Countries , Pandemics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , Financing, Government , Immunization Programs , Global Health
13.
BMJ ; 379: o2514, 2022 10 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2088790
14.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(10): 1406-1407, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2036641
15.
Environ Manage ; 70(5): 697-709, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2007132

ABSTRACT

The resilience of public environmental agencies is an important but broadly under-researched discourse. This paper addresses this lacuna by drawing on a three-part typology of resilience from organizational studies and applying it to the English natural environment agency, Natural England, following a decade of public sector agency de-funding under the aegis of austerity. The research question was explored qualitatively through eleven semi-structured interviews with the senior management team of Natural England during the summer of 2020. The findings suggest that public agency multi-functionality equate to heterogenous resilience across agency functions; that generally agency resilience (as a function of capacities) is poor with consequences upon good governance; and that they are broadly poorly positioned for the aftermath of Covid-19. The findings speak directly to the regulatory and organizational literatures with public administration by evidencing the complex realities of understanding resiliencies in large multi-functional public environmental agencies.


Subject(s)
Environment , Organizational Culture , Public Sector , Financial Support , Financing, Government , Humans
16.
East Mediterr Health J ; 26(5): 492-494, 2020 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2002915

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak that began in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in late 2019 has spread globally within a few months. The Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) after the second meeting of the IHR (2005) Emergency Committee on 30 January 2020. On 12 March 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 was characterized as a pandemic.


Subject(s)
Communicable Disease Control/methods , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Communicable Disease Control/economics , Congresses as Topic , Disease Outbreaks , Financing, Government , Humans , Mediterranean Region/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
17.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy ; 20(5): 681-691, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1966202

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Easy and equitable access to testing has been a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID-19. Currently in Australia, testing using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for COVID-19 is free to the user, but government funding for rapid antigen tests (RATs) is limited. We conduct an economic analysis of alternative government policies regarding the funding of COVID-19 testing in Australia. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to describe COVID-19 testing pathways for the Australian population over a 1-week period. The model outputs were analysed to estimate R numbers associated with alternative funding policies, which were used to estimate COVID-19 cases over a 6-month time horizon. Healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) effects were applied to new COVID-19 cases. The model was populated using responses to a de novo population survey and published data sources. RESULTS: Compared with no government-funded COVID-19 testing, government-funded testing is estimated to generate large incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs), up to A$15 billion in the base-case analyses. Government-funded PCR testing and RATs for all is predicted to maximise INMBs in most tested scenarios, though funding RATs for all and not PCR tests has similar INMBs in many scenarios and generates higher benefits to costs ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Our interpretation of the modelled analysis is that at the time of writing (July 2022), with high vaccination uptake in Australia and few other public health measures in place, Australian governments should consider reducing funding of PCR testing, for example, limiting capacity to essential workers and individuals with known risk factors for serious symptoms, and fund RATs for all.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Financing, Government , Australia , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans
18.
Nurs Sci Q ; 35(3): 291-294, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1932984

ABSTRACT

This column concerns the power of an RO1 grant from the federal government of the United States. To that end, a discussion of the philosophical viewpoints of power, the process of applying for federal grants, and a consideration of a more inclusive process will ensue.


Subject(s)
Financing, Government , Humans , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL