Search

The aim of this paper is to contribute technical arguments to the debate about the importance of health examination surveys and their continued use during the post-pandemic health financing crisis, and in the context of a technological innovation boom that offers new ways of collecting and analysing individual health data (e.g. artificial intelligence). Technical considerations demonstrate that health examination surveys make an irreplaceable contribution to the local availability of primary health data that can be used in a range of further studies (e.g. normative, burden-of-disease, care cascade, cost and policy impact studies) essential for informing several phases of the health planning cycle (e.g. surveillance, prioritization, resource mobilization and policy development). Examples of the use of health examination survey data in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region (i.e. Finland, Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and the WHO Region of the Americas (i.e. Chile, Mexico, Peru and the United States of America) are presented, and reasons why health provider-led data cannot replace health examination survey data are discussed (e.g. underestimation of morbidity and susceptibility to bias). In addition, the importance of having nationally representative random samples of the general population is highlighted and we argue that health examination surveys make a critical contribution to external quality control for a country's health system by increasing the transparency and accountability of health spending. Finally, we consider future technological advances that can improve survey fieldwork and suggest ways of ensuring health examination surveys are sustainable in low-resource settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widespread acknowledgement that trust is important in a pandemic, few concrete proposals exist on how to incorporate trust into preparing for the next health crisis. One reason is that building trust is rightly perceived as slow and challenging. Although trust in public institutions and one another is essential in preparing for a pandemic, countries should plan for the possibility that efforts to instil or restore trust may fail. Incorporating trust into pandemic preparedness means acknowledging that polarization, partisanship and misinformation may persist and engaging with communities as they currently are, not as we would wish them to be. This paper presents a practical policy agenda for incorporating mistrust as a risk factor in pandemic preparedness and response planning. We propose two sets of evidence-based strategies: (i) strategies for ensuring the trust that already exists in a community is sustained during a crisis, such as mitigating pandemic fatigue by health interventions and honest and transparent sense-making communication; and (ii) strategies for promoting cooperation in communities where people mistrust their governments and neighbours, sometimes for legitimate, historical reasons. Where there is mistrust, pandemic preparedness and responses must rely less on coercion and more on tailoring local policies and building partnerships with community institutions and leaders to help people overcome difficulties they encounter in cooperating with public health guidance. The regular monitoring of interpersonal and government trust at national and local levels is a way of enabling this context-specific pandemic preparedness and response planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The World Health Organization (WHO) set up the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology transfer programme in June 2021 with a development hub in South Africa and 15 partner vaccine producers in middle-income countries. The goal was to support the sustainable development of and access to life-saving vaccines for people in these countries as a means to enhance epidemic preparedness and global public health. This initiative aims to build resilience and strengthen local vaccine research, and development and manufacturing capacity in different regions of the world, especially those areas that could not access coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in a timely way. This paper outlines the current global vaccine market and summarizes the findings of a case study on the mRNA technology transfer programme conducted from November 2022 to May 2023. The study was guided by the vision of the WHO Council on the Economics of Health for All to build an economy for health using its four work streams of value, finance, innovation and capacity. Based on the findings of the study, we offer a mission-oriented policy framework to support the mRNA technology transfer programme as a pilot for transformative change towards an ecosystem for health innovation for the common good. Parts of this vision have already been incorporated into the governance of the mRNA technology transfer programme, while other aspects, especially the common good approach, still need to be applied to achieve the goals of the programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing use of machine learning for the health financing functions (revenue raising, pooling and purchasing), yet evidence lacks for its effects on the universal health coverage (UHC) objectives. This paper provides a synopsis of the use cases of machine learning and their potential benefits and risks. The assessment reveals that the various use cases of machine learning for health financing have the potential to affect all the UHC intermediate objectives -- the equitable distribution of resources (both positively and negatively); efficiency (primarily positively); and transparency (both positively and negatively). There are also both positive and negative effects on all three UHC final goals, that is, utilization of health services in line with need, financial protection and quality care. When the use of machine learning facilitates or simplifies health financing tasks that are counterproductive to UHC objectives, there are various risks -- for instance risk selection, cost reductions at the expense of quality care, reduced financial protection or over-surveillance. Whether the effects of using machine learning are positive or negative depends on how and for which purpose the technology is applied. Therefore, specific health financing guidance and regulations, particularly for (voluntary) health insurance, are needed. To inform the development of specific health financing guidance and regulation, we propose several key policy and research questions. To gain a better understanding of how machine learning affects health financing for UHC objectives, more systematic and rigorous research should accompany the application of machine learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented to a series of papers focused on the scientific dialogue between sectors on health and economics, with topics including constitutional right to health, advancements in mental health as part of a well-being economy, and health taxonomy development to guide sustainable investment decisions.