Financing intersectoral action for health: a systematic review of co-financing models

Abstract

BackgroundAddressing 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.AimThis study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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 rep...

Systems thinking in health technology assessment: a scoping review

“…A consideration of nonhealth sectors is rare in HTA, but it is recognized to have the potential to improve population health. McGuire et al (35) reviewed cofinancing models for intersectoral action interventions, and although they acknowledged that this type of integration is still in an exploratory stage, it has the potential to achieve improved health outcomes.…”

University collaboration for co-designing sustainable urban areas

“…Cross-sectoral cooperation and partnerships are an essential part of any strategy to improve the health and well-being in the countries such as the United States. Cross-sectoral cooperation has the potential to align resources and contributions from multiple sectors to address problems [39]. However, there is a lack of research into the types and forms of crosssectoral cooperation that can be used in rural communities to address community problems.…”

Health intersectoralism in the Sustainable Development Goal era: from theory to practice

“…Having frameworks to guide intersectoral action is essential, but implementation can remain a challenge despite knowing downstream health impacts of investment in non-health sectors. McGuire et al [10] take on this challenge by reviewing co-financing models for intersectoral action, usually involving health, education, and social care sectors. Cost-effectiveness estimates are complicated when impacts do not fall strictly within one sector's purview, and the co-benefits can then be more difficult to sell.…”

“…The intent of this collection is to stimulate dialogue on setting priorities for intersectoral action, identifying cobenefits across sectors, and monitoring and managing collaboration. This introduction summarizes key points from the 12 articles included in the issue and discusses emergent themes [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”