Search

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a leading health and development challenge worldwide. Since 2015, WHO and the United Nations Development Programme have provided support to governments to develop national NCD investment cases to describe the socioeconomic dimensions of NCDs. To assess the impact of the investment cases, semistructured interviews and a structured process for gathering written feedback were conducted between July and October 2022 with key informants in 13 countries who had developed a national NCD investment case between 2015 and 2020. Investment cases describe: (1) the social and economic costs of NCDs, including their distribution and projections over time; (2) priority areas for scaled up action; (3) the cost and returns from investing in WHO-recommended measures to prevent and manage NCDs; and (4) the political dimensions of NCD responses. While no country had implemented all the recommendations set out in their investment case reports, actions and policy changes attributable to the investment cases were identified, across (1) governance; (2) financing; and (3) health service access and delivery. The pathways of these changes included: (1) stronger collaboration across government ministries and partners; (2) advocacy for NCD prevention and control; (3) grounding efforts in nationally owned data and evidence; (4) developing mutually embraced ‘language’ across health and finance; and (5) elevating the priority accorded to NCDs, by framing action as an investment rather than a cost. The assessment also identified barriers to progress on the investment case implementation, including the influence of some private sector entities on sectors other than health, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and changes in senior political and technical government officials. The results suggest that national NCD investment cases can significantly contribute to catalysing the prevention and control of NCDs through strengthening governance, financing, and health service access and delivery.

Objective. To synthesize learnings from four national tobacco control investment cases conducted in the Americas (Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Suriname) under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) 2030 project, to describe results and how national health authorities have used the cases, and to discuss implications for the role of investment cases in advancing tobacco control. Methods. We draw on findings from four national investment cases that included 1) a cost-of-illness analysis calculating the health and economic burden of tobacco use, 2) a return-on-investment analysis of implementing key tobacco control demand reduction measures, and 3) a subsidiary analysis of one tobacco control topic of national interest (e.g., equity implications of cigarette taxation). Co-authors reported how cases have been used to advance tobacco control. Results. In Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Suriname, tobacco use causes social and economic losses equivalent to between 1.0 to 1.8 percent of GDP. Across these countries, implementing WHO FCTC demand reduction measures would save an average of 11 400 lives per year over the next 15 years. Benefits of the measures would far outweigh the costs of implementation and enforcement. Governments are using the cases to advance tobacco control, including to improve tobacco control laws and their enforcement, strengthen tobacco taxation, prioritize tobacco control planning, coordinate a multisectoral response, and engage political leaders. Conclusions. National investment cases can help to strengthen tobacco control in countries, including by increasing public and political support for implementation of the WHO FCTC and by informing effective planning, legislation, coordination and financing.

BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are increasingly recognized as a significant threat to health and development globally, and United Nations (UN) Member States adopted the Political Declaration of the Third High-level Meeting (HLM) on the prevention and control of NCDs in 2018. The negotiation process for the Declaration included consultations with Member States, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector. With NCD responses facing charges of inadequacy, it is important to scrutinize the governance process behind relevant high-level global decisions and commitments. MethodsThrough a review of 159 documents submitted by stakeholders during the negotiation process, we outline a typology of policy positions advocated by various stakeholders in the development of the Declaration. We document changes in text from the draft to the final version of the Declaration to analyse the extent to which various positions and their proponents were influential. ResultsNGOs and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) generally pursued ‘stricter’ governance of NCD risk factors including stronger regulation of unhealthy products and improved management of conflicts of interest that arise when health-harming industries are involved in health policy-making. The private sector and high-income countries generally opposed greater restrictions on commercial factors. The pattern of changes between the draft and final Declaration indicate that advocated positions tended to be included in the Declaration if there was no clear opponent, whereas opposed positions were either not included or included with ambiguous language. ConclusionMany cost-effective policy options to address NCDs, such as taxation of health-harming products, were opposed by high-income countries and the private sector and not well-represented in the Declaration. To ensure robust political commitments and action on NCDs, multi-stakeholder governance for NCDs must consider imbalances in power and influence amongst constituents as well as biases and conflicts in positioning.

Abstract Background Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors’ shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility. Aim This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers. Methods We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded. Results Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes. Conclusion Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223412.].

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are a broad challenge for decision-makers. NCDs account for seven out of every 10 deaths globally, with 42 percent occurring prematurely in individuals under age 70. Despite their heavy toll, NCDs are underfunded, with only around two percent of global funding dedicated to the disease set. Country governments are responsible for funding targeted actions to reduce the NCD burden, but among other priorities, many have yet to invest in the health-system interventions and policy measures that can reduce the burden. This article examines "investment cases" as a potential mechanism for catalyzing attention to-and funding for-NCDs. In Jamaica, using the UN inter-agency OneHealth Tool, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the return-on-investment from scaling up strategic clinical interventions, and from implementing or intensifying policy measures that target NCD risk factors. In addition, we conducted an institutional and context (ICA) analysis, interviewing stakeholders across sectors to take stock of promising policy pathways (e.g., areas of general consensus, political appetite and opportunity) as well as challenges to implementation. The economic analysis found that scaling up clinical interventions that target CVD, diabetes, and mental health disorders, and policy measures that target tobacco and alcohol use, would save over 6,600 lives between 2017-2032, and avert JMD 81.3 billion (USD 640 million) in direct and indirect economic costs that result from mortality and morbidity linked to NCDs. The ICA uncovered government economic growth targets and social priorities that would be aided by increased attention to NCDs, and it linked these targets and priorities to the economic analysis.

Background Cardiology has advanced guideline development and quality measurement. Recognizing the substantial benefits of guideline‐directed medical therapy, this study aims to measure and explain apparent deviations in heart failure (HF) guideline adherence by clinicians at hospital discharge and describe any impact on readmission rates. Methods and Results The extent of decongestion and prescription of neurohormonal therapy were recorded prospectively for 226 HF discharges, including 132 (58%) from an academic hospital and 94 (42%) from a community hospital. Among all discharges, 25% were discharged with residual congestion (30% academic versus 18% community, P=0.070). Among discharges of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, 37% (45% academic versus 18% community, P