Common Goods For Health Research Articles

Leveraging global investments forpolio eradication to strengthen health systems' resilience through transition.

Since the launch of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988, more than US$20 billion has been invested globally in polio eradication. The World Health Organization and its partners are currently supporting Member States to transition the functions used to eradicate polio to strengthen their health systems. This study analyses global polio activities through the lens of health systems and the Common Goods for Health (CGH). Polio activities include key health system functions such as surveillance and response systems and immunization, which are essential to maintaining resilient health systems. They also support essential functions such as policy development, planning, training and capacity building, which are often underfunded in many countries. To improve overall resilience, it is critical to continue to integrate these functions into local health systems so that the capacity built through the polio eradication programme can be used for broader public health purposes. It is vital that this integration process be tailored to each country's unique health system context, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. While integration of all polio activities into local health systems is ideal, the transition to domestic financing may be coordinated with other global health financing mechanisms. This would reduce funding fragmentation and transaction costs, and allow for a focus on health system functions as a whole rather than just disease-specific efforts. The transition to domestic financing of polio activities could be staggered, prioritizing the transition to domestic funding for activities with limited global externalities, while seeking longer-term external funding for those that are global CGH.

Global Health Security

To reduce the risk and effect of sudden incidents of public health that put people at risk across national and international boundaries, it is necessary to take both preventive and reactive measures. These measures are referred to as global health security. Discussions on health security in scientific gatherings have become more prevalent in recent years after the Covid pandemic. Health security is for the whole world, irrespective of age, race, gender, or financial stability. However, it has been noted that there are many different concepts of health security, that the whole purpose of this is to accommodate only the upper-class societies. The disturbed equilibrium of the microbial world due to rapid urbanization, population increase, environmental deterioration, and the improper use of antimicrobials makes people realize the importance of health security that requires a collaborative approach focused on preparedness for any future pandemics and equal access to health care products. 
 The covid-19 pandemic has had a great influence on people’s lives and their ability to think. Now the main race is not about defence systems; it has shifted towards more and better health security and the ability to deal with any future pandemics. The coronavirus outbreak was associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome, the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak in 2012, the swine flu pandemic in 2009, and the West African Ebola virus disease epidemic in 2013–2016. All these epidemics are primarily caused by the significant travel of infected people across borders. This highlights the need for global health security, which helps coordinate surveillance and policymaking. This limits disease transmission and reduces the damage.
 While infectious diseases have no limits, inadequate health systems in poor nations make them worse and more out of control. Africa and other third-world states face many problems in securing global security. The spread of infectious diseases among susceptible areas is due to inadequate public healthcare fundings, vaccine coverage, poverty, armed conflict, and climate-related disasters, which damage developing countries. This only serves to increase susceptibility to the disease. The continuous transmission of polio and measles in different parts of Africa and Asia, as well as recent Ebola outbreaks in West Africa, highlights the need to overcome this in order to stop the spread of diseases to other areas. No nation can be completely protected from the spread of diseases due to a lack of social services and a strong health infrastructure; hence, global security demands global equality and progress towards health for everyone. 
 To advance global health security in all nations, there is a need for multi-stakeholders and governance, justifiable finance through the proposed pandemic funds, and common goods for health. Future outbreaks can be efficiently managed by funding basic healthcare and enhancing the response systems. Equity in pandemic preparedness and response measures depends on high-level political commitment and global leadership irrespective of colour and gender. False contradictions between countries can be dismissed by focused investments in strengthening health emergency infrastructure, particularly through primary healthcare, ensuring that the world is better prepared to handle complex public health emergencies.

Tracking financing for global common goods for health: A machine learning approach using natural language processing techniques.

Tracking global health funding is a crucial but time consuming and labor-intensive process. This study aimed to develop a framework to automate the tracking of global health spending using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) algorithms. We used the global common goods for health (CGH) categories developed by Schäferhoff et al. to design and evaluate ML models. We used data curated by Schäferhoff et al., which tracked the official development assistance (ODA) disbursements to global CGH for 2013, 2015, and 2017, for training and validating the ML models. To process raw text, we implemented different NLP techniques, such as removing stop words, lemmatization, and creation of synthetic text, to balance the dataset. We used four supervised learning ML algorithms-random forest (RF), XGBOOST, support vector machine (SVM), and multinomial naïve Bayes (MNB) (see Glossary)-to train and test the pre-coded dataset, and applied the best model on dataset that hasn't been manually coded to predict the financing for CGH in 2019. After we trained the machine on the training dataset (n = 10,534), the weighted average F1-scores (a measure of a ML model's performance) on the testing dataset (n = 2,634) ranked 0.79-0.83 among four models, and the RF model had the best performance (F1-score = 0.83). The predicted total donor support for CGH projects by the RF model was $2.24 billion across 3 years, which was very close to the finding of $2.25 billion derived from coding and classification by humans. By applying the trained RF model on the 2019 dataset, we predicted that the total funding for global CGH was about $2.7 billion for 730 CGH projects. We have demonstrated that NLP and ML can be a feasible and efficient way to classify health projects into different global CGH categories, and thus track health funding for CGH routinely using data from publicly available databases.

Common Goods for Health: Economic Rationale and Tools for Prioritization

This paper presents the economic rationale for treating Common Goods for Health (CGH) as priorities for public intervention. We use the concept of market failure as a central argument for identifying CGH and apply cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a normative tool to prioritize CGH interventions in public finance decisions. We show that CGH are consistent with traditional lists of public health core functions but cannot be identified separately from non-CGH activities in such lists. We propose a public finance decision tree, adapted from existing health economics tools, to identify CGH activities within the set of cost-effective interventions for the health sector. We test the framework by applying it to the 2018 Disease Control Priority (DCP) list of interventions recommended for public funding and find that less than 10% of cost-effective interventions unconditionally qualify as CGH, while another two-thirds may or may not qualify depending on context and form. We conclude that while CEA can be used as a tool to prioritize CGH, the scarcity of such analyses for CGH interventions may be partly responsible for the lack of priority given to them. We encourage further research to address methodological and resource challenges to assessing the cost-effectiveness of CGH intervention packages, in particular those involving large investments and long-term benefits.

The Case for Public Financing of Environmental Common Goods for Health

Safeguarding the continued existence of humanity requires building societies that cause minimal disruptions of the essential planetary systems that support life. While major successes have been achieved in improving health in recent decades, threats from the environment may undermine these gains, particularly among vulnerable populations and communities. In this article, we review the rationale for governments to invest in environmental Common Goods for Health (CGH) and identify functions that qualify as such, including interventions to improve air quality, develop sustainable food systems, preserve biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage carbon sinks. Exploratory empirical analyses reveal that public spending on environmental goods does not crowd out public spending on health. Additionally, we find that improved governance is associated with better performance in environmental health outcomes, while the degrees of people’s participation in the political system together with voice and accountability are positively associated with performance in ambient air quality and biodiversity/habitat. We provide a list of functions that should be prioritized by governments across different sectors, and present preliminary costing of environmental CGH. As shown by the costing estimates presented here, these actions need not be especially expensive. Indeed, they are potentially cost-saving. The paper concludes with case examples of national governments that have successfully prioritized and financed environmental CGH. Because societal preferences may vary across time, government leaders seeking to protect the health of future generations must look beyond electoral cycles to enact policies that protect the environment and finance environmental CGH.

When Do Governments Support Common Goods for Health? Four Cases on Surveillance, Traffic Congestion, Road Safety, and Air Pollution

Common goods such as air, water, climate, and other resources shared by all humanity are under increasing pressure from growing population and advancing globalization of the world economy. Safeguarding these resources is generally considered a government responsibility, as common goods are vulnerable to market failure. However, governments do not always fulfill this role, and face many challenges in doing so. This observation—that governments only sometimes address common goods problems—informs the central question of this paper: when do governments act in support of common goods? We structure our inquiry using a framework derived from three theories of agenda setting, emphasizing problem perception, the role of actors and collective action patterns, strategies and policies, and catalyzing circumstances. We used a poll of experts to identify important common goods for health: disease surveillance, environmental protection, and accountability. We then chose four historical cases for analysis: the establishment of the Epidemic Intelligence Service in the US, transport planning in London, road safety in Argentina, and air quality control in urban India. Our analysis of the collective evidence of these cases suggests that decisions to advance government action on common goods require a concisely articulated problem, a well-defined strategy for addressing the problem, and leadership backed by at least a few important groups willing to cooperate. Our cases reveal a variety of collective action patterns, suggesting that there are many routes to success. We consider that the timing of an intervention in support of common goods depends on favorable circumstances, which can include a catalyzing event but does not necessarily require one.

International Funding for Global Common Goods for Health: An Analysis Using the Creditor Reporting System and G-FINDER Databases

West Africa’s Ebola epidemic of 2014–2016 exposed, among other problems, the under-funding of transnational global health activities known as global common goods for health (CGH), global functions such as pandemic preparedness and research and development (R&D) for neglected diseases. To mobilize sustainable funding for global CGH, it is critical first to understand existing financing flowing to different types of global CGH. In this study, we estimate trends in international spending for global CGH in 2013, 2015, and 2017, encompassing the era before and after the Ebola epidemic. We use a measure of international funding that combines official development assistance (ODA) for health with additional international spending on R&D for diseases of poverty, a measure called ODA+. We classify ODA+ into funding for three global functions—provision of global public goods, management of cross-border externalities, and fostering of global health leadership and stewardship—and country-specific aid. International funding for global functions increased between 2013 and 2015 by $1.4 billion to a total of $7.3 billion in 2015. It then declined to $7.0 billion in 2017, accounting for 24% of all ODA+ in 2017. These findings provide empirical evidence of the reactive nature of international funders for global CGH. While international funders increased funding for global functions in response to the Ebola outbreak, they failed to sustain that funding. To meet future global health challenges proactively, international funders should allocate more funding for global functions.

Financing Common Goods for Health: Core Government Functions in Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management

In the absence of good data on the costs and comparative benefits from investing in health emergency and disaster risk management (EDRM), governments have been reluctant to invest adequately in systems to reduce the risks and consequences of emergencies and disasters. Yet they spend heavily on their response. We describe a set of key functional areas for investment and action in health EDRM, and calculate the costs needed to establish and operate basic health EDRM services in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on management of epidemics and disasters from natural hazards.We find that health EDRM costs are affordable for most governments. They range from an additional 4.33 USD capital and 4.16 USD annual recurrent costs per capita in low-income countries to 1.35 USD capital to 1.41 USD recurrent costs in upper middle-income countries. These costs pale in comparison to the costs of not acting—the direct and indirect costs of epidemics and other emergencies from natural hazards are more than 20-fold higher.We also examine options for the institutional arrangements needed to design and implement health EDRM. We discuss the need for creating adaptive institutions, strengthening capacities of countries, communities and health systems for managing risks of emergencies, using “all-of-society” and “all-of-state institutions” approaches, and applying lessons about rules and regulations, behavioral norms, and organizational structures to better implement health EDRM. The economic and social value, and the feasibility of institutional options for implementing health EDRM systems should compel governments to invest in these common goods for health that strengthen national health security.