The G20 and development assistance for health: historical trends and crucial questions to inform a new era

Dieleman, Joseph L; Cowling, Krycia; Agyepong, Irène Akua; Alkenbrack, Sarah; Bollyky, Thomas J.; Bump, Jesse B.; Chen, Catherine S; Grépin, Karen A; Haakenstad, Annie; Härle, A.; Kates, J; Lavado, Rouselle F.; Micah, Angela E; Ottersen, Trygve; Tandon, Ajay; Tsakalos, Golsum; Wu, Junjie; Zhao, Yingxi; Zlavog, Bianca S.; Murray, Christopher J L

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31333-9

Cited by 25 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between 2012 and 2016, 31.80-48.59% of Japan's DAH went to infectious diseases control including HIV/AIDS, which has aligned with disease burden in LMICs to some extent (or lower), where infectious disease accounted for about 40-50% of the total disease burden in LMICs [55]. Importantly, Japan's DAH allocation should take full account of the health transition of DAH-recipient countries and make the burden of disease an important criterion for prioritizing resource allocation [12]. In the future, it will become increasingly important to promote prevention as well as treatment by focusing on HSS in recipient countries.…”

Section: Health System Strengthening For Non-communicable Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This figure is much larger than DAH alone can cover. While taking into account the country's own priorities, it is the most important strategic challenge for donors to consider how DAH can support the use and mobilization of domestic resources and how it can intervene in ways that reduce investment risks for the private sector [12].…”

Section: Approach To Support Domestic Resources and Private Investmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, DAH functions as a support for issues that cannot be adequately addressed with domestic and private funds to achieve SDGs, including the SDG target 3.8 on UHC. In addition, there is an increasing need to act as a catalyst to strengthen capacity to mobilize and properly manage and disburse domestic and private funds [12]. DAH must also adapt to the growing health effects of climate change, conflict, and refugees/migrants crisis, and global political trends that emphasize national interests [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tracking Japan’s development assistance for health, 2012–2016

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Development assistance for health (DAH) is one of the most important means for Japan to promote diplomacy with developing countries and contribute to the international community. This study, for the first time, estimated the gross disbursement of Japan's DAH from 2012 to 2016 and clarified its flows, including source, aid type, channel, target region, and target health focus area. Methods: Data on Japan Tracker, the first data platform of Japan's DAH, were used. The DAH definition was based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) sector classification. Regarding core funding to non-health-specific multilateral agencies, we estimated DAH and its flows based on the OECD methodology for calculating imputed multilateral official development assistance (ODA). Results: Japan's DAH was estimated at 1472.94 (2012), 823.15 (2013), 832.06 (2014), 701.98 (2015), and 894.57 million USD (2016) in constant prices of 2016. Multilateral agencies received the largest DAH share of 44.96-57.01% in these periods, followed by bilateral grants (34.59-53.08%) and bilateral loans (1.96-15.04%). Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) was the largest contributors to the DAH (76.26-82.68%), followed by Ministry of Finance (MOF) (10.86-16.25%). Japan's DAH was most heavily distributed in the African region with 41.64-53.48% share. The channel through which the most DAH went was Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis,. Between 2012 and 2016, approximately 70% was allocated to primary health care and the rest to health system strengthening.Conclusions: With many major high-level health related meetings ahead, coming years will play a powerful opportunity to reevaluate DAH and shape the future of DAH for Japan. We hope that the results of this study will enhance the social debate for and contribute to the implementation of Japan's DAH with a more efficient and effective strategy.

show abstract

Section: Health System Strengthening For Non-communicable Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approach To Support Domestic Resources and Private Investmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tracking Japan’s development assistance for health, 2012–2016

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Dieleman and colleagues suggest that to tackle the problem of poverty-related morbidity and mortality in MICs, ODA for health could be allocated based on the absolute size of populations living in poverty. 31 This approach would mean an increase in country-specific support to large MICs such as Brazil, China, and India. We argue for a different approach to improving the health of poor people in MICs: greater support for global CGH, such as market shaping and pooled procurement that would bring down the prices of medicines and vaccines, and R&D to develop and deliver new health tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Schäferhoff¹,

Chodavadia

Martínez³

et al. 2019

Health Systems & Reform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The global health community of governments, particularly the G20, and funders, particularly leaders including the NIH, the BMGF, and the Wellcome Trust, must seize the moment and take up the recommendations from WHO, the IPCC, and increasingly vocal members of the global health research and practice communities to prioritize equity, efficiency, and sustainability, 53 including vigorous action on climate change and infectious disease. To protect hard won gains, the global health community needs to recognize its shortcomings, broaden and expand its perspective, assume a proactive posture, and intensify its activity.…”

Section: Call To Action In Global Health Practicementioning

confidence: 99%