Global return on investment and cost-effectiveness of WHO's HEAR interventions for hearing loss: a modelling study

Background

To address the growing prevalence of hearing loss, WHO has identified a compendium of key evidence-based ear and hearing care interventions to be included within countries’ universal health coverage packages. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these interventions and their budgetary effect for countries, we aimed to analyse the investment required to scale up services from baseline to recommended levels, and the return to society for every US$1 invested in the compendium.

Methods

We did a modelling study using the proposed set of WHO interventions (summarised under the acronym HEAR: hearing screening and intervention for newborn babies and infants, pre-school and school-age children, older adults, and adults at higher risk of hearing loss; ear disease prevention and management; access to technologies such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, or hearing assistive technologies; and rehabilitation service provision), which span the life course and include screening and management of hearing loss and related ear diseases, costs and benefits for the national population cohorts of 172 countries. The return on investment was analysed for the period between 2020 and 2030 using three scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario, a progress scenario with a scale-up to 50% of recommended coverage, and an ambitious scenario with scale-up to 90% of recommended coverage. Using data for hearing loss burden from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, a transition model with three states (general population, diagnosed, and those who have died) was developed to model the national populations in countries. For the return-on-investment analysis, the monetary value of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted in addition to productivity gains were compared against the investment required in each scenario.

Findings

Scaling up ear and hearing care interventions to 90% requires an overall global investment of US$238·8 billion over 10 years. Over a 10-year period, this investment promises substantial health gains with more than 130 million DALYs averted. These gains translate to a monetary value of more than US$1·3 trillion. In addition, investment in hearing care will result in productivity benefits of more than US$2 trillion at the global level by 2030. Together, these benefits correspond to a return of nearly US$15 for every US$1 invested.

Interpretation

This is the first-ever global investment case for integrating ear and hearing care interventions in countries’ universal health coverage services. The findings show the economic benefits of investing in this compendium and provide the basis for facilitating the increase of country's health budget for strengthening ear and hearing care services.

Funding

None.

The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence

Substantial global effort has been devoted to curtailing the tobacco epidemic over the past two decades, especially after the adoption of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control1 by the World Health Organization in 2003. In 2015, in recognition of the burden resulting from tobacco use, strengthened tobacco control was included as a global development target in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development2. Here we show that comprehensive tobacco control policies-including smoking bans, health warnings, advertising bans and tobacco taxes-are effective in reducing smoking prevalence; amplified positive effects are seen when these policies are implemented simultaneously within a given country. We find that if all 155 countries included in our counterfactual analysis had adopted smoking bans, health warnings and advertising bans at the strictest level and raised cigarette prices to at least 7.73 international dollars in 2009, there would have been about 100 million fewer smokers in the world in 2017. These findings highlight the urgent need for countries to move toward an accelerated implementation of a set of strong tobacco control practices, thus curbing the burden of smoking-attributable diseases and deaths.

Spending on World Health Organization essential medicines in Medicare Part D, 2011-15: retrospective cost analysis

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the trends, drivers, and potential modifiers of increased spending by US Medicare beneficiaries on medicines deemed essential by the World Health Organization.

DESIGN

Retrospective cost analysis of Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File, detailing annual generic and brand name drug prescribing and spending from 2011 through 2015 by Medicare Part D participants who filled prescriptions for WHO essential medicines.

SETTING

US Medicare System.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total and per beneficiary Medicare spending, total and per beneficiary out-of-pocket patient spending, cumulative beneficiary count, claim count, and per unit drug cost. All spending measures were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2015 US dollars.

RESULTS

Medicare Part D expenditures on 265 WHO essential medicines between 2011 and 2015 was $87.2bn (£68.4bn; €76.5bn), with annual spending increasing from $11.9bn in 2011 to $25.8bn in 2015 (116%). Patients' out-of-pocket spending for essential medicines over the same period was $12.1bn. Total annual out-of-pocket spending increased from $2.0bn to $2.9bn (47%), and annual per beneficiary out-of-pocket spending on these drugs increased from $20.42 to $21.17 (4%). Total prescription count increased from 376.1m to 498.9m (33%), and cumulative beneficiary count grew from 95.9m to 135.8m (42%). Of the essential medicines included in the study, the per unit cost of 133 (50%) agents increased faster than the average inflation rate during this period. Overall, approximately 58% of the increase in total spending during this period can be attributed to the introduction of novel agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Spending associated with essential medicines grew substantially from 2011 to 2015, driven largely by the increased use of two expensive novel drugs used in treating hepatitis C. Approximately 22% of increased total spending during this period can be attributed to increases in per unit cost of existing drugs. These trends may limit patients' access to essential drugs while also increasing healthcare system costs.

The financial sustainability of the World Health Organization and the political economy of global health governance: a review of funding proposals

The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to experience immense financial stress. The precarious financial situation of the WHO has given rise to extensive dialogue and debate. This dialogue has generated diverse technical proposals to remedy the financial woes of the WHO and is intimately tied to existential questions about the future of the WHO in global health governance. In this paper, we review, categorize, and synthesize the proposals for financial reform of the WHO. It appears that less contentious issues, such as convening financing dialogue and establishing a health emergency programme, received consensus from member states. However, member states are reluctant to increase the assessed annual contributions to the WHO, which weakens the prospect for greater autonomy for the organisation. The WHO remains largely supported by earmarked voluntary contributions from states and non-state actors. We argue that while financial reform requires institutional changes to enhance transparency, accountability and efficiency, it is also deeply tied to the political economy of state sovereignty and ideas about the leadership role of the WHO in a crowded global health governance context.

Cost of a measles outbreak in a remote island economy: 2014 Federated States of Micronesia measles outbreak

After 20years with no reported measles cases, on May 15, 2014 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was notified of two cases testing positive for measles-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Under the Compact of Free Association, FSM receives immunization funding and technical support from the United States (US) domestic vaccination program managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In a collaborative effort, public health officials and volunteers from FSM and the US government worked to respond and contain the measles outbreak through an emergency mass vaccination campaign, contact tracing, and other outbreak investigation activities. Contributions were also made by United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization (WHO). Total costs incurred as a result of the outbreak were nearly $4,000,000; approximately $10,000 per case. Direct medical costs (≈$141,000) were incurred in the treatment of those individuals infected, as well as lost productivity of the infected and informal caregivers (≈$250,000) and costs to contain the outbreak (≈$3.5 million). We assessed the economic burden of the 2014 measles outbreak to FSM, as well as the economic responsibilities of the US. Although the US paid the majority of total costs of the outbreak (≈67%), examining each country's costs relative to their respective economy illustrates a far greater burden to FSM. We demonstrate that while FSM was heavily assisted by the US in responding to the 2014 Measles Outbreak, the outbreak significantly impacted their economy. FSM's economic burden from the outbreak is approximately equivalent to their entire 2016 Fiscal Year budget dedicated to education.

Who pays for cooperation in global health? A comparative analysis of WHO, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance

In this report we assess who pays for cooperation in global health through an analysis of the financial flows of WHO, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. The past few decades have seen the consolidation of influence in the disproportionate roles the USA, UK, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have had in financing three of these four institutions. Current financing flows in all four case study institutions allow donors to finance and deliver assistance in ways that they can more closely control and monitor at every stage. We highlight three major trends in global health governance more broadly that relate to this development: towards more discretionary funding and away from core or longer-term funding; towards defined multi-stakeholder governance and away from traditional government-centred representation and decision-making; and towards narrower mandates or problem-focused vertical initiatives and away from broader systemic goals.

At the Roots of The World Health Organization's Challenges: Politics and Regionalization

The World Health Organization's (WHO's) leadership challenges can be traced to its first decades of existence. Central to its governance and practice is regionalization: the division of its member countries into regions, each representing 1 geographical or cultural area. The particular composition of each region has varied over time-reflecting political divisions and especially decolonization. Currently, the 194 member countries belong to 6 regions: the Americas (35 countries), Europe (53 countries), the Eastern Mediterranean (21 countries), South-East Asia (11 countries), the Western Pacific (27 countries), and Africa (47 countries). The regions have considerable autonomy with their own leadership, budget, and priorities. This regional organization has been controversial since its beginnings in the first days of WHO, when representatives of the European countries believed that each country should have a direct relationship with the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, whereas others (especially the United States) argued in favor of the regionalization plan. Over time, regional directors have inevitably challenged the WHO directors-general over their degree of autonomy, responsibilities and duties, budgets, and national composition; similar tensions have occurred within regions. This article traces the historical roots of these challenges.

Productivity losses associated with tuberculosis deaths in the World Health Organization African region

BACKGROUND

In 2014, almost half of the global tuberculosis deaths occurred in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Approximately 21.5 % of the 6 060 742 TB cases (new and relapse) reported to the WHO in 2014 were in the African Region. The specific objective of this study was to estimate future gross domestic product (GDP) losses associated with TB deaths in the African Region for use in advocating for better strategies to prevent and control tuberculosis.

METHODS

The cost-of-illness method was used to estimate non-health GDP losses associated with TB deaths. Future non-health GDP losses were discounted at 3 %. The analysis was conducted for three income groups of countries. One-way sensitivity analysis at 5 and 10 % discount rates was undertaken to assess the impact on the expected non-health GDP loss.

RESULTS

The 0.753 million tuberculosis deaths that occurred in the African Region in 2014 would be expected to decrease the future non-health GDP by International Dollars (Int$) 50.4 billion. Nearly 40.8, 46.7 and 12.5 % of that loss would come from high and upper-middle- countries or lower-middle- and low-income countries, respectively. The average total non-health GDP loss would be Int$66 872 per tuberculosis death. The average non-health GDP loss per TB death was Int$167 592 for Group 1, Int$69 808 for Group 2 and Int$21 513 for Group 3.

CONCLUSION

Tuberculosis exerts a sizeable economic burden on the economies of the WHO AFR countries. This implies the need to strongly advocate for better strategies to prevent and control tuberculosis and to help countries end the epidemic of tuberculosis by 2030, as envisioned in the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Burden of neurological conditions in Canada

Neurological conditions are among the leading causes of disability in the Canadian population and are associated with a large public health burden. An increase in life expectancy and a declining birth rate has resulted in an aging Canadian population, and the proportion of age-adjusted mortality due to non-communicable diseases has been steadily increasing. These conditions are frequently associated with chronic disability and an increasing burden of care for patients, their families and caregivers. The National Population Health Study of Neurological Conditions (NPHSNC) aims to improve knowledge about neurological conditions and their impacts on individuals, their families, caregivers and health care system. The Systematic Review of Determinants of Neurological Conditions, a specific objective within the NPHSNC, is a compendium of systematic reviews on risk factors affecting onset and progression of the following 14 priority neurological conditions: Alzheimer's disease (AD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), brain tumours (BT), cerebral palsy (CP), dystonia, epilepsy, Huntington's disease (HD), hydrocephalus, multiple sclerosis (MS), muscular dystrophies (MD), neurotrauma, Parkinson's disease (PD), spina bifida (SB), and Tourette's syndrome (TS). The burden of neurological disease is expected to increase as the population ages, and this trend is presented in greater detail for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease because the incidence of these two common neurological diseases increases significantly with age over 65 years. This article provides an overview of burden of neurological diseases in Canada to set the stage for the in-depth systematic reviews of the 14 priority neurological conditions presented in subsequent articles in this issue.

WHO essential medicines policies and use in developing and transitional countries: an analysis of reported policy implementation and medicines use surveys

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal medicine use is a global public health problem. For 35 years the World Health Organization (WHO) has promoted essential medicines policies to improve quality use of medicines (QUM), but evidence of their effectiveness is lacking, and uptake by countries remains low. Our objective was to determine whether WHO essential medicines policies are associated with better QUM.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We compared results from independently conducted medicines use surveys in countries that did versus did not report implementation of WHO essential medicines policies. We extracted survey data on ten validated QUM indicators and 36 self-reported policy implementation variables from WHO databases for 2002-2008. We calculated the average difference (as percent) for the QUM indicators between countries reporting versus not reporting implementation of specific policies. Policies associated with positive effects were included in a regression of a composite QUM score on total numbers of implemented policies. Data were available for 56 countries. Twenty-seven policies were associated with better use of at least two percentage points. Eighteen policies were associated with significantly better use (unadjusted p<0.05), of which four were associated with positive differences of 10% or more: undergraduate training of doctors in standard treatment guidelines, undergraduate training of nurses in standard treatment guidelines, the ministry of health having a unit promoting rational use of medicines, and provision of essential medicines free at point of care to all patients. In regression analyses national wealth was positively associated with the composite QUM score and the number of policies reported as being implemented in that country. There was a positive correlation between the number of policies (out of the 27 policies with an effect size of 2% or more) that countries reported implementing and the composite QUM score (r=0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59, p=0.003). This correlation weakened but remained significant after inclusion of national wealth in multiple linear regression analyses. Multiple policies were more strongly associated with the QUM score in the 28 countries with gross national income per capita below the median value (US$2,333) (r=0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.69, p=0.023) than in the 28 countries with values above the median (r=0.22, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.56, p=0.261). The main limitations of the study are the reliance on self-report of policy implementation and measures of medicine use from small surveys. While the data can be used to explore the association of essential medicines policies with medicine use, they cannot be used to compare or benchmark individual country performance.

CONCLUSIONS

WHO essential medicines policies are associated with improved QUM, particularly in low-income countries. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Democratizing the world health organization

A progressive erosion of the democratic space appears as one of the emerging challenges in global health today. Such delimitation of the political interplay has a particularly evident impact on the unique public interest function of the World Health Organization (WHO). This paper aims to identify some obstacles for a truly democratic functioning of the UN specialized agency for health. The development of civil society's engagement with the WHO, including in the current reform proposals, is described. The paper also analyses how today's financing of the WHO--primarily through multi-bi financing mechanisms--risks to choke the agency's role in global health. Democratizing the public debate on global health, and therefore the role of the WHO, requires a debate on its future role and engagement at the country level. This desirable process can only be linked to national debates on public health, and the re-definition of health as a primary political and societal concern.

Global health initiative investments and health systems strengthening: a content analysis of global fund investments

BACKGROUND

Millions of dollars are invested annually under the umbrella of national health systems strengthening. Global health initiatives provide funding for low- and middle-income countries through disease-oriented programmes while maintaining that the interventions simultaneously strengthen systems. However, it is as yet unclear which, and to what extent, system-level interventions are being funded by these initiatives, nor is it clear how much funding they allocate to disease-specific activities - through conventional 'vertical-programming' approach. Such funding can be channelled to one or more of the health system building blocks while targeting disease(s) or explicitly to system-wide activities.

METHODS

We operationalized the World Health Organization health system framework of the six building blocks to conduct a detailed assessment of Global Fund health system investments. Our application of this framework framework provides a comprehensive quantification of system-level interventions. We applied this systematically to a random subset of 52 of the 139 grants funded in Round 8 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (totalling approximately US$1 billion).

RESULTS

According to the analysis, 37% (US$ 362 million) of the Global Fund Round 8 funding was allocated to health systems strengthening. Of that, 38% (US$ 139 million) was for generic system-level interventions, rather than disease-specific system support. Around 82% of health systems strengthening funding (US$ 296 million) was allocated to service delivery, human resources, and medicines & technology, and within each of these to two to three interventions. Governance, financing, and information building blocks received relatively low funding.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a substantial portion of Global Fund's Round 8 funds was devoted to health systems strengthening. Dramatic skewing among the health system building blocks suggests opportunities for more balanced investments with regard to governance, financing, and information system related interventions. There is also a need for agreement, by researchers, recipients, and donors, on keystone interventions that have the greatest system-level impacts for the cost-effective use of funds. Effective health system strengthening depends on inter-agency collaboration and country commitment along with concerted partnership among all the stakeholders working in the health system.