Search

Background: When countries reach the middle-income threshold, many multilateral donors, including Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi), begin to withdraw their official development assistance (ODA), known as graduation. We hypothesised that bilateral donors might follow Gavi's lead, except in countries where they have strategic interests. We aim to understand how bilateral donors behave after a recipient country graduates from Gavi support and how bilateral donors might treat Gavi support countries differently, based on 'strategic interest'. We also aim to identify countries that were more vulnerable to 'simultaneous' transitions and financial cliffs after Gavi transition., Methods: This is an observational dyadic analysis using longitudinal data. We collected country-level data on 77 Gavi-eligible countries between 2009 and 2018 and paired donor and recipient country in a specific year to conduct dyadic analysis. We included Gavi graduation status and Gavi disbursement as explanatory variables. We controlled for (1) donor-recipient relationship variables that represent potential strategic relationships (eg, distance between donor and recipient country) and (2) recipient-level characteristics (eg, population, income). We used Odinary Least Squares regression, Tobit and two-part model in Stata SE 15.0., Findings: We found a country would receive $3.1 million less all sector ODA from a bilateral donor, and $0.6 million less health ODA, after they graduate from Gavi. For every additional 1% ODA a country would receive from Gavi, it would receive 0.14% more ODA and 0.16% more health ODA from individual bilateral donors. Gavi's graduation status or disbursement brought more change in percentage term to health ODA than to total ODA. Additionally, Gavi's graduation was observed to have a larger negative impact on bilateral ODA in the longer term. Countries that sent more migrants, had been colonised, and received more US military assistance tended to receive more ODA. There are similarities and differences across different donors and bilateral donors tend to provide more ODA to nearby countries and countries receiving fewer exports from the donor. We found that former colonies did not see a decline in aid after Gavi graduation., Conclusion: Bilateral donors behave in a similar manner to Gavi when it comes to funding health systems in low and middle-income countries. Therefore, some countries may be at risk of losing donor resources for health from a multitude of sources around the same time. However, countries that have a strategic interest in bilateral donors may be spared from such funding cliffs. This research has important implications for global health donors' funding policies and approaches in addition to recipient countries' transition planning., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Poverty-related and neglected diseases (PRNDs) cause over three million deaths annually. Despite this burden, there is a large gap between actual funding for PRND research and development (R&D) and the funding needed to launch PRND products from the R&D pipeline. This study provides an economic evaluation of a theoretical global pooled-funding mechanism to finance late-stage clinical trials of PRND products., Methods: We modelled three pooled-funding design options, each based on a different level of coverage of candidate products for WHO's list of PRNDs: (1) vaccines covering 4 PRNDs, (2) vaccines and therapeutics covering 9 PRNDs and (3) vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics covering 30 PRNDs. For each option, we constructed a discrete event simulation of the 2019 PRND R&D pipeline to estimate required funding for phase III trials and expected product launches through 2035. For each launch, we estimated global PRND treatment costs averted, deaths averted and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. For each design option, we calculated the cost per death averted, cost per DALY averted, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Results: Option 1 averts 18.4 million deaths and 516 million DALYs, has a cost per DALY averted of US$84 and yields a BCR of 5.53. Option 2 averts 22.9 million deaths and 674 million DALYs, has a cost per DALY averted of US$75, an ICER over option 1 of US$49 and yields a BCR of 3.88. Option 3 averts 26.9 million deaths and 1 billion DALYs, has a cost per DALY averted of US$114, an ICER over option 2 of US$186 and yields a BCR of 2.52., Conclusions: All 3 options for a pooled-funding mechanism-vaccines for 4 PRNDs, vaccines and therapeutics for 9 PRNDs, and vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics for 30 PRNDs-would generate a large return on investment, avert a substantial proportion of the global burden of morbidity and mortality for diseases of poverty and be cost-effective., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors report grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation during the conduct of this study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This paper reviews the experience of six low-income and lower middle-income countries in setting their own essential packages of health services (EPHS), with the purpose of identifying the key requirements for the successful design and transition to implementation of the packages in the context of accelerating progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). The analysis is based on input from three meetings of a knowledge network established by the Disease Control Priorities 3 Country Translation Project and working groups, supplemented by a survey of participating countries.All countries endorsed the Sustainable Development Goals target 3.8 on UHC for achievement by 2030. The assessment of country experiences found that health system strengthening and mobilising and sustaining health financing are major challenges. EPHS implementation is more likely when health system gaps are addressed and when there are realistic and sustainable financing prospects. However, health system assessments were inadequate and the government planning and finance sectors were not consistently engaged in setting the EPHS in most of the countries studied. There was also a need for greater engagement with community and civil society representatives, academia and the private sector in package design. Leadership and reinforcement of technical and managerial capacity are critical in the transition from EPHS design to sustained implementation, as are strong human resources and country ownership of the process. Political commitment beyond the health sector is key, particularly commitment from parliamentarians and policymakers in the planning and finance sectors. National ownership, institutionalisation of technical and managerial capacity and reinforcing human resources are critical for success.The review concludes that four prerequisites are crucial for a successful EPHS: (1) sustained high-level commitment, (2) sustainable financing, (3) health system readiness, and (4) institutionalisation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Although it is difficult to quantify, previous estimates suggested that China's global health aid has increased sharply since the early 2000s. Unlike many donors, China has no official aid reporting obligations, nor does it voluntarily disclose detailed aid information. Our study aimed to create a standardised estimate using commonly accepted definitions of aid and frameworks for categorising health projects., Methods: We categorised AidData's Chinese Official Finance Dataset health-related projects according to health aid frameworks from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Only projects that complied with the definition of official development assistance were included. We analysed the project count and financial value to assess China's priority health aid areas., Findings: Between 2000 and 2017, China funded 1339 health-related aid projects, or 13% of its total aid project portfolio. Most of these projects were located in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the OECD framework, the priority focus areas of these projects were: medical services, such as specialty equipment and tertiary services (n=489, 37%); basic health care, such as basic medical services and drugs (n=251, 19%); malaria control (n=234, 18%) and basic health infrastructure (n=178, 13%). Under the IHME framework, health systems strengthening accounted for 74% (n=991) of total projects, primarily due to China's contributions to human resources for health, infrastructure and equipment. The only other major allocation under the IHME framework was malaria (n=234, 18%). When we estimated missing financial values under the OECD framework, China was the fifth largest health aid donor to African countries from 2002 to 2017, after the USA, the UK, Canada and Germany., Conclusion: Our findings enable a better understanding of Chinese health aid in the absence of transparent aid reporting, which could contribute to better coordination, collaboration and resource allocation for both donor and recipient countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: This work was part of a project funded by UNAIDS.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Ghana's shift from low-income to middle-income status will make it ineligible to receive concessional aid in the future. While transition may be a reflection of positive changes in a country, such as economic development or health progress, a loss of support from donor agencies could have negative impacts on health system performance and population health. We aimed to identify key challenges and opportunities that Ghana will face in dealing with aid transition, specifically from the point of view of country-level stakeholders., Methods: We conducted key informant interviews with 18 stakeholders from the government, civil society organisations and donor agencies in Ghana using a semistructured interview guide. We performed directed content analysis of the interview transcripts to identify key themes related to anticipated challenges and opportunities that might result from donor transitions., Results: Overall, stakeholders identified challenges more frequently than opportunities. All stakeholders interviewed believe that Ghana will face substantial challenges due to donor transitions. Challenges include difficulty filling financial gaps left by donors, the shifting of national priorities away from the health sector, lack of human resources for health, interrupted care for beneficiaries of donor-funded health programmes, neglect of vulnerable populations and loss of the accountability mechanisms that are linked with donor financing. However, stakeholders also identified key opportunities that transitions might present, including efficiency gains, increased self-determination and self-sufficiency, enhanced capacity to leverage domestic resources and improved revenue mobilisation., Conclusion: Stakeholders in Ghana believe transitioning away from aid for health presents both challenges and opportunities. The challenges could be addressed by conducting a transition readiness assessment, identifying health sector priorities, developing a transition plan with a budget to continue critical health programmes and mobilising greater political commitment to health. The loss of aid could be turned into an opportunity to integrate vertical programmes into a more comprehensive health system., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: GY declares that he was a member of the COVID-19 Vaccine Development Taskforce, hosted by the World Bank, and participated in the consultation process that led to the launch of COVAX. GY and OO have received grant funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: GY and OO are principal investigators of a study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on the transition of middle-income countries from development assistance for health; in this work they partner with research institutions in Nigeria.

Achieving many of the health targets in the Sustainable Development Goals will not be possible without increased financing for global health research and development (R&D). Yet financing for neglected disease product development fell from 2009-2015, with the exception of a one-time injection of Ebola funding. An important cause of the global health R&D funding gap is lack of coordination across R&D initiatives. In particular, existing initiatives lack robust priority-setting processes and transparency about investment decisions. Low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs) are also often excluded from global investment initiatives and priority-setting discussions, leading to limited investment by these countries. An overarching global health R&D coordination platform is one promising response to these challenges. This analysis examines the essential functions such a platform must play, how it should be structured to maximise effectiveness and investment strategies for diversifying potential investors, with an emphasis on building LIC and MIC engagement. Our analysis suggests that a coordination platform should have four key functions: building consensus on R&D priorities; facilitating information sharing about past and future investments; building in accountability mechanisms to track R&D spending against investment targets and curating a portfolio of prioritised projects alongside mechanisms to link funders to these projects. Several design features are likely to increase the platform's success: public ownership and management; separation of coordination and financing functions; inclusion of multiple diseases; coordination across global and national efforts; development of an international R&D 'roadmap' and a strategy for the financial sustainability of the platform's secretariat., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GY declares that the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health has received grant funding from multiple funders that support global health R&D: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Health Technologies Coalition and the WHO. NB and SF declare that the Global Health Group has received grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Millennium Development Goals have ended and the Sustainable Development Goals have begun, marking a shift in the global health landscape. The frame of reference has changed from a focus on 8 development priorities to an expansive set of 17 interrelated goals intended to improve the well-being of all people. In this time of change, several groups, including the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, have brought a critical problem to the fore: 5 billion people lack access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. The magnitude of this problem and the world's new focus on strengthening health systems mandate reimagined roles for and renewed commitments from high income country actors in global surgery. To discuss the way forward, on 6 May 2015, the Commission held its North American launch event in Boston, Massachusetts. Panels of experts outlined the current state of knowledge and agreed on the roles of surgical colleges and academic medical centres; trainees and training programmes; academia; global health funders; the biomedical devices industry, and news media and advocacy organisations in building sustainable, resilient surgical systems. This paper summarises these discussions and serves as a consensus statement providing practical advice to these groups. It traces a common policy agenda between major actors and provides a roadmap for maximising benefit to surgical patients worldwide. To close the access gap by 2030, individuals and organisations must work collectively, interprofessionally and globally. High income country actors must abandon colonial narratives and work alongside low and middle income country partners to build the surgical systems of the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AV is director of Developing Health Globally at the GE foundation, the philanthropic organisation of GE. SMR is Chief Executive Officer of Gradian Health Systems, a non-profit medical device company that manufactures and distributes technology for anaesthesia and surgical applications in low income environments.