This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Researchers urge additional investment in global health aid
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Only $1 of every $5 spent on international health aid in 2013 went to global initiatives as opposed to country-specific aid — a mistake if the goal is to provide critical health care services to as many people living in poverty as possible, according to research published in The Lancet.
“The best way for donors to improve the health of poor people in middle-income countries is to invest in research and development for neglected diseases, pandemic preparedness, and other global functions of health,” Lawrence H. Summers, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University and former United States Treasury secretary, said in a press release. “These investments will improve existing tools, lower drug prices, and increase global coordination to make it cheaper and more efficient for all countries to deliver health services to poor people.”
To quantify donor financing for global health functions — including support for health research and development for diseases specific to poverty and outbreak preparedness — Summers and colleagues presented an expanded definition of official development assistance (ODA) for health, which is used to measure aid to developing countries. They combined financing officially reported as ODA from the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, with pharmaceutical research and development expenditures for neglected diseases not included in the ODA calculation to form what they termed “official development assistance plus.”
Using this expanded definition, the researchers determined that only $4.7 billion of $22 billion in aid was given to support global health initiatives in 2013. In addition to drug research and development, global spending addressed antimicrobial resistance, preparing for the next disease outbreak, and providing international leadership and stewardship.
Of the $17.3 billion provided as country-specific aid, 47% was delivered to low-income countries, 22% was allocated to lower-middle-income countries, and 9% went to upper-middle-income countries. The remaining 22% was not allocated to a specific country.
“We should be investing in essential global functions, as these investments would benefit poor people wherever they live, including the poor within middle-income countries,” study researcher Marco Schäferhoff, PhD, associate director of the consulting group SEEK Development in Berlin, said in the release. “For example, countries like China and India would substantially benefit from market shaping to lower drug prices and increased international efforts to control [multidrug-resistant] tuberculosis. At the same time, health aid to the world’s poorest countries must continue and donor countries should also ensure that vulnerable and marginalized populations in middle-income countries ... receive sufficient support.” – by David Jwanier
Disclosure: Please see the full study for a list of all authors’ relevant financial disclosures.
Collapse
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts