Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 22
Filter
5.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 27(5): 492-500, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501235

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine levels of expenditure and needed investment in public health at the local level in the state of Ohio pre-COVID-19. DESIGN: Using detailed financial reporting from fiscal year (FY) 2018 from Ohio's local health departments (LHDs), we characterize spending by Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS). We also constructed estimates of the gap in public health spending in the state using self-reported gaps in service provision and a microsimulation approach. Data were collected between January and June 2019 and analyzed between June and September 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four of the 113 LHDs in the state of Ohio covering a population of almost 9 million Ohioans. RESULTS: In FY2018, Ohio LHDs spent an average of $37 per capita on protecting and promoting the public's health. Approximately one-third of this investment supported the Foundational Areas (communicable disease control; chronic disease and injury prevention; environmental public health; maternal, child, and family health; and access to and linkages with health care). Another third supported the Foundational Capabilities, that is, the crosscutting skills and capacities needed to support all LHD activities. The remaining third supported programs and activities that are responsive to local needs and vary from community to community. To fully meet identified LHD needs in the state pre-COVID-19, Ohio would require an additional annual investment of $20 per capita on top of the current $37 spent per capita, or approximately $240 million for the state. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the cost and value of public health services can educate policy makers so that they can make informed trade-offs when balancing health care, public health, and social services investments. The current environment of COVID-19 may dramatically increase need, making understanding and growing public health investment critical.


Subject(s)
Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Public Health Practice/economics , Public Health/economics , COVID-19/economics , Financing, Government/economics , Humans , Local Government , Ohio
9.
Lancet ; 398(10308): 1317-1343, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433921

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.
Can J Public Health ; 112(2): 186-190, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1229505

ABSTRACT

Inspired by Fiset-Laniel et al.'s (2020) article entitled "Public health investments: neglect or wilful omission? Historical trends in Quebec and implications for Canada", we assessed public health investments since the establishment of the Nova Scotia provincial health authority in 2015. We analyzed Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness budgets from 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 and observed that less than 1% of funding was budgeted for public health annually, an amount well below the recommendation that 5-6% of healthcare funding be spent on public health. Healthcare spending has increased annually since 2015-2016, but proportions of funding to different programs and services have remained static. Specifically, we did not observe a change in investment in public health over time, suggesting that while the government does not necessarily spend too much or too little on healthcare, it spends far too little on public health. This chronic under-funding is problematic given the high rates of non-communicable diseases in Nova Scotia and health inequities experienced within the population. The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of public health work, and the need for a pandemic recovery plan that prioritizes investment in all areas of public health in Nova Scotia.


RéSUMé: Inspirés par l'article de Fiset-Laniel et coll. (2020) intitulé « Public health investments: neglect or wilful omission? Historical trends in Quebec and implications for Canada ¼, nous avons évalué les investissements en santé publique depuis la fondation de l'autorité sanitaire provinciale de la Nouvelle-Écosse en 2015. Nous avons analysé les budgets du ministère de la Santé et du Mieux-Être de la Nouvelle-Écosse de 2015−2016 à 2019−2020 et nous avons observé que moins de 1 % du financement était prévu pour la santé publique annuellement, un montant bien inférieur à la recommandation que 5−6 % du financement pour les soins de santé soit dépensé sur la santé publique. Les dépenses de santé ont augmenté annuellement depuis 2015−2016, mais les proportions du financement consacrés à différents programmes et services ont demeuré statiques. Spécifiquement, nous n'avons pas observé de changement dans l'investissement en santé publique au fil du temps, indiquant que tandis que le gouvernement ne dépense pas nécessairement trop ou trop peu sur les soins de santé, il dépense bien trop peu sur la santé publique. Ce sous-financement chronique est problématique étant donné les hauts taux de maladies non transmissibles en Nouvelle-Écosse et les inégalités en matière de santé qui existent au sein de la population. La pandémie de la COVID-19 de 2020 a souligné l'importance du travail lié à la santé publique, ainsi que la nécessité d'un plan de rétablissement suite à une pandémie qui priorise l'investissement dans tous les domaines de santé publique en Nouvelle-Écosse.


Subject(s)
Budgets/trends , Financing, Government/economics , Public Health/economics , COVID-19 , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Noncommunicable Diseases/epidemiology , Nova Scotia/epidemiology
17.
Front Public Health ; 8: 588852, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1000211

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has shocked the world causing more victims than the latest global epidemics such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2003, and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012. Italy has been one of the most affected countries, and it had to deal with an already weak economic condition and cuts to public health services due to budgetary requirements from the last decade-something that made the situation even more dramatic. Deaths have exceeded 600.000 worldwide. During the emergency, regulatory measures were taken to counter the situation. This study highlights the main anti-COVID-19 government measures to support doctors and healthcare professionals, and it analyzes how to respond to the many requests complaining about neglectful healthcare professionals during the spread of the infection. For all those healthcare workers who died on duty, a compensation plan is assumed through a solidarity fund. The same solution cannot be granted to all patients, given the difficulty in assessing the responsibility of the doctor not only during an emergency but with insufficient instruments to cope with it as well.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Financing, Government/economics , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Politics , Public Health , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , SARS-CoV-2
19.
J Vasc Surg ; 72(6): 1856-1863, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-863661

ABSTRACT

Although the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created havoc with the U.S healthcare system and physicians, the financial and contractual implications for physicians are now beginning to come to the forefront. Financial assistance from the federal government has mainly been received by hospitals, which have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 illness. Some physician groups have, or are, receiving assistance through a few programs, although the accelerated and advance payments have been suspended. Employed surgeons are now being furloughed, terminated, or persuaded to agree to a significant cut in pay, forego bonuses, or take leave without pay as healthcare systems and some physician groups have started to experience the consequences of halting elective procedures. Newly hired surgeons might be forced in a few cases to agree to delays in starting their employment, new amendments, changes in employment status, and other terms for fear of losing their employment. In the present report, we have explained some agreement terminology and options available to allow physicians to understand the terms of their employment agreement and make their decisions after consulting with an expert healthcare attorney.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Employment/economics , Financing, Government/economics , Income , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/economics , Surgeons/economics , Ambulatory Care/economics , COVID-19/legislation & jurisprudence , Employment/legislation & jurisprudence , Financing, Government/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/legislation & jurisprudence , Policy Making , Practice Management, Medical/economics , Surgeons/legislation & jurisprudence , Telemedicine/economics , Time Factors , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL