Tracking Development Assistance for Health: A Comparative Study of the 29 Development Assistance Committee Countries, 2011-2019.
ABSTRACT: Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important part of financing healthcare in low- and middle-income countries. We estimated the gross disbursement of DAH of the 29 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for 2011-2019; and clarified its flows, including aid type, channel, target region, and target health focus area. Data from the OECD iLibrary were used. The DAH definition was based on the OECD sector classification. For 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). The total amount of DAH for all countries combined was 18.5 billion USD in 2019, at 17.4 USD per capita, with the 2011-2019 average of 19.7 billion USD. The average share of DAH in ODA for the 29 countries was about 7.9% in 2019. Between 2011 and 2019, most DAC countries allocated approximately 60% of their DAH to primary health care, with the remaining 40% allocated to health system strengthening. We expect that the estimates of this study will help DAC member countries strategize future DAH wisely, efficiently, and effectively while ensuring transparency.
Project description:<b>Background</b>: Official development assistance (ODA) is one of the most important means for donor countries to foster diplomatic relations with low- and middle-income countries and contribute to the welfare of the international community.<b>Objective</b>: This study estimated the sectoral allocation of gross disbursements of ODA of the 29 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the duration of 2011 to 2018, by aid type (bilateral, multilateral, and both aids).<b>Methods</b>: Data from the OECD iLibrary were used. The sector definition was based on the OECD sector classification. For core funding to multilateral agencies that do not specialize in each aid sector, we estimated ODA and its flows based on the OECD methodology for calculating imputed multilateral ODA.<b>Results</b>: For all 29 countries, during the period of 2014-2018 where data were available for all the countries, the sector with the highest average annual ODA contribution was health at 20.34 billion USD (13.21%), followed by humanitarian aid at 18.04 billion (11.72%). Humanitarian aid has increased in the sectoral share rankings in both bilateral and multilateral aid, and the sectoral share for refugees in donor countries has increased in bilateral aid. While the 29 countries show relatively similar trends for sectoral shares, some countries and sectors display unique trends. For instance, infrastructure and energy sectors in bilateral aid of Japan are particularly high accounts for 48.48% of the total bilateral ODA of the country in 2018.<b>Conclusions</b>: This paper evaluated ODA trends by major donors of DAC countries in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic periods. We hope that our estimates will contribute to the review of the strategic decision-making and the effective implementation of future ODA policy discussions in the DAC countries while ensuring transparency.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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).<h4>Results</h4>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, and Malaria (20.04-34.89%). Between 2012 and 2016, approximately 70% was allocated to primary health care and the rest to health system strengthening.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Donor countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been among the largest donors in the world. However, little is known about their contributions for health. In this study, we addressed this gap by estimating the amount of development assistance for health (DAH) contributed by MENA country donors from 2000 to 2017. METHODS:We tracked DAH provided and received by the MENA region leveraging publicly available development assistance data in the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) database of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), government agency reports and financial statements from key international development agencies. We generated estimates of DAH provided by the three largest donor countries in the MENA region (UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and compared contributions to their relative gross domestic product (GDP) and government spending; We captured DAH contributions by other MENA country governments (Egypt, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, etc.) disbursed through multilateral agencies. Additionally, we compared DAH contributed from and provided to the MENA region. RESULTS:In 2017, DAH contributed by the MENA region reached $514.8 million. While UAE ($220.1 million, 43.2%), Saudi Arabia ($177.3 million, 34.8%) and Kuwait ($59.8 million, 11.6%) as sources contributed the majority of DAH in 2017, 58.5% of total DAH from MENA was disbursed through their bilateral agencies, 12.0% through the World Health Organization (WHO) and 3.3% through other United Nations agencies. 44.8% of DAH contributions from MENA was directed to health system strengthening/sector-wide approaches. Relative to their GDP and government spending, DAH level fluctuated across 2000 to 2017 but UAE and Saudi Arabia indicated increasing trends. While considering all MENA countries as recipients, only 10.5% of DAH received by MENA countries were from MENA donors in 2017. CONCLUSION:MENA country donors especially UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been providing substantial amount of DAH, channeled through their bilateral agencies, WHO and other multilateral agencies, with a prioritized focus on health system strengthening. DAH from the MENA region has been increasing for the past decade and could lend itself to important contributions for the region and the globe.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To provide information on trends on official development assistance (ODA) disbursement patterns for reproductive health activities in 18 conflict-affected countries.<h4>Design</h4>Secondary data analysis.<h4>Sample</h4>18 conflict-affected countries and 36 non-conflict-affected countries.<h4>Methods</h4>The Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database was analyzed for ODA disbursement for direct and indirect reproductive health activities to 18 conflict-affected countries (2002-2011). A comparative analysis was also made with 36 non-conflict-affected counties in the same 'least-developed' income category. Multivariate regression analyses examined associations between conflict status and reproductive health ODA and between reproductive needs and ODA disbursements.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Patterns of ODA disbursements (constant U.S. dollars) for reproductive health activities.<h4>Results</h4>The average annual ODA disbursed for reproductive health to 18 conflict-affected countries from 2002 to 2011 was US$ 1.93 per person per year. There was an increase of 298% in ODA for reproductive health activities to the conflict-affected countries between 2002 and 2011; 56% of this increase was due to increases in HIV/AIDS funding. The average annual per capita reproductive health ODA disbursed to least-developed non-conflict-affected countries was 57% higher than to least-developed conflict-affected countries. Regression analyses confirmed disparities in ODA to and between conflict-affected countries.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Despite increases in ODA for reproductive health for conflict-affected countries (albeit largely for HIV/AIDS activities), considerable disparities remains.<h4>Tweetable abstract</h4>Study tracking 10 years of aid for reproductive aid shows major disparities for conflict-affected countries.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to "ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages". While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available.<h4>Methods</h4>We estimated domestic health spending, disaggregated by source (government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private) from 1995 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. For disease-specific health spending, we estimated spending for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis for 135 low-income and middle-income countries, and malaria in 106 malaria-endemic countries, from 2000 to 2017. We also estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2019, by source, disbursing development agency, recipient, and health focus area, including DAH for pandemic preparedness. Finally, we estimated future health spending for 195 countries and territories from 2018 until 2030. We report all spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2019 US$, unless otherwise stated.<h4>Findings</h4>Since the development and implementation of the SDGs in 2015, global health spending has increased, reaching $7·9 trillion (95% uncertainty interval 7·8-8·0) in 2017 and is expected to increase to $11·0 trillion (10·7-11·2) by 2030. In 2017, in low-income and middle-income countries spending on HIV/AIDS was $20·2 billion (17·0-25·0) and on tuberculosis it was $10·9 billion (10·3-11·8), and in malaria-endemic countries spending on malaria was $5·1 billion (4·9-5·4). Development assistance for health was $40·6 billion in 2019 and HIV/AIDS has been the health focus area to receive the highest contribution since 2004. In 2019, $374 million of DAH was provided for pandemic preparedness, less than 1% of DAH. Although spending has increased across HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria since 2015, spending has not increased in all countries, and outcomes in terms of prevalence, incidence, and per-capita spending have been mixed. The proportion of health spending from pooled sources is expected to increase from 81·6% (81·6-81·7) in 2015 to 83·1% (82·8-83·3) in 2030.<h4>Interpretation</h4>Health spending on SDG3 priority areas has increased, but not in all countries, and progress towards meeting the SDG3 targets has been mixed and has varied by country and by target. The evidence on the scale-up of spending and improvements in health outcomes suggest a nuanced relationship, such that increases in spending do not always results in improvements in outcomes. Although countries will probably need more resources to achieve SDG3, other constraints in the broader health system such as inefficient allocation of resources across interventions and populations, weak governance systems, human resource shortages, and drug shortages, will also need to be addressed.<h4>Funding</h4>The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>A recent report by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) highlights that mental health receives little attention despite being a major cause of disease burden. This paper extends previous assessments of development assistance for mental health (DAMH) in two significant ways; first by contrasting DAMH against that for other disease categories, and second by benchmarking allocated development assistance against the core disease burden metric (disability-adjusted life year) as estimated by the Global Burden of Disease Studies.<h4>Methods</h4>In order to track DAH, IHME collates information from audited financial records, project level data, and budget information from the primary global health channels. The diverse set of data were standardised and put into a single inflation adjusted currency (2015 US dollars) and each dollar disbursed was assigned up to one health focus areas from 1990 through 2015. We tied these health financing estimates to disease burden estimates (DALYs) produced by the Global Burden of Disease 2015 Study to calculated a standardised measure across health focus areas-development assistance for health (in US Dollars) per DALY.<h4>Findings</h4>DAMH increased from USD 18 million in 1995 to USD 132 million in 2015, which equates to 0.4% of total DAH in 2015. Over 1990 to 2015, private philanthropy was the most significant source (USD 435 million, 30% of DAMH), while the United States government provided USD 270 million of total DAMH. South and Southeast Asia received the largest proportion of funding for mental health in 2013 (34%). DAMH available per DALY in 2013 ranged from USD 0.27 in East Asia and the Pacific to USD 1.18 in the Middle East and North Africa. HIV/AIDS received the largest ratio of funds to burden-approximately USD150 per DALY in 2013. Mental and substance use disorders and its broader category of non-communicable disease received less than USD1 of DAH per DALY.<h4>Interpretation</h4>Combining estimates of disease burden and development assistance for health provides a valuable perspective on DAH resource allocation. The findings from this research point to several patterns of unproportioned distribution of DAH, none more apparent than the low levels of international investment in non-communicable diseases, and in particular, mental health. However, burden of disease estimates are only one input by which DAH should be determined.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the increasing interest in China's development assistance for health (DAH) in African countries, little is known regarding the distribution and determinants of China's DAH project allocation among the principle subdivisions (provinces & states) within African countries. METHODS:We mapped the distribution of China's DAH projects in 670 principle subdivisions of 50 African countries during 2006-2015 using web-based information. The political, demographic, health and socioeconomic indicators of DAH allocation were analyzed using conditional logistic regression models. The national capital city and political leader's birth place were selected as the main political indicators, and health indicators were selected according to different fields of the DAH projects. RESULTS:China's DAH projects (mainly China medical teams [CMTs], hospitals and anti-malaria centers) were mostly allocated to the western and eastern coasts of Africa, although CMTs were also dispatched to northern Africa. National capital cities were significantly associated with the allocation of China's DAH projects (P?<? 0.001). Anti-malaria centers were more likely to be allocated to principle subdivisions with larger populations (OR?=?1.35), and CMTs were allocated to subdivisions with high population densities (OR?=?79.01). No health-related indicators were identified to affect project allocation except for the facility delivery rate and under-five mortality rate, which were associated with hospital allocation. We also found an association between CMT allocation and the use of artemisinin-based combination therapy in children. CONCLUSIONS:Allocation of China's DAH projects is strongly affected by political and demographic factors. Implementation of China's new DAH projects should target health and socio-economic indicators and impact metrics in scaling up tailored and cost-effective programs in Africa.
Project description:The distributions of income and health within and across countries are changing. This challenges the way donors allocate development assistance for health (DAH) and particularly the role of gross national income per capita (GNIpc) in classifying countries to determine whether countries are eligible to receive assistance and how much they receive. Informed by a literature review and stakeholder consultations and interviews, we developed a stepwise approach to the design and assessment of country classification frameworks for the allocation of DAH, with emphasis on critical value choices. We devised 25 frameworks, all which combined GNIpc and at least one other indicator into an index. Indicators were selected and assessed based on relevance, salience, validity, consistency, and availability and timeliness, where relevance concerned the extent to which the indicator represented country's health needs, domestic capacity, the expected impact of DAH, or equity. We assessed how the use of the different frameworks changed the rankings of low- and middle-income countries relative to a country's ranking based on GNIpc alone. We found that stakeholders generally considered needs to be the most important concern to be captured by classification frameworks, followed by inequality, expected impact and domestic capacity. We further found that integrating a health-needs indicator with GNIpc makes a significant difference for many countries and country categories-and especially middle-income countries with high burden of unmet health needs-while the choice of specific indicator makes less difference. This together with assessments of relevance, salience, validity, consistency, and availability and timeliness suggest that donors have reasons to include a health-needs indicator in the initial classification of countries. It specifically suggests that life expectancy and disability-adjusted life year rate are indicators worth considering. Indicators related to other concerns may be mainly relevant at different stages of the decision-making process, require better data, or both.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>As the Millennium Development Goals ended, and were replaced by the Sustainable Development Goals, efforts have been made to evaluate the achievements and performance of official development assistance (ODA) in the health sector. In this study, we explore trends in the expansion of water and sanitation coverage in developing countries and the performance of ODA.<h4>Design</h4>We explored inequality across developing countries by income level, and investigated how ODA for water and sanitation was committed by country, region, and income level. Changes in inequality were tested via slope changes by investigating the interaction of year and income level with a likelihood ratio test. A random effects model was applied according to the results of the Hausman test.<h4>Results</h4>The slope of the linear trend between economic level and sanitation coverage has declined over time. However, a random effects model suggested that the change in slope across years was not significant (e.g. for the slope change between 2000 and 2010: likelihood ratio ?<sup>2</sup> = 2.49, probability > ?<sup>2</sup> = 0.1146). A similar pro-rich pattern across developing countries and a non-significant change in the slope associated with different economic levels were demonstrated for water coverage. Our analysis shows that the inequality of water and sanitation coverage among countries across the world has not been addressed effectively during the past decade. Our findings demonstrate that the countries with the least coverage persistently received far less ODA per capita than did countries with much more extensive water and sanitation coverage, suggesting that ODA for water and sanitation is poorly targeted.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The most deprived countries should receive more attention for water and sanitation improvements from the world health community. A strong political commitment to ODA targeting the countries with the least coverage is needed at the global level.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Tracking aid flows helps to hold donors accountable and to compare the allocation of resources in relation to health need. With the use of data reported by donors in 2015, we provided estimates of official development assistance and grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (collectively termed ODA+) to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health for 2013 and complete trends in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health support for the period 2003-13.<h4>Methods</h4>We coded and analysed financial disbursements to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health to all recipient countries from all donors reporting to the creditor reporting system database for the year 2013. We also revisited disbursement records for the years 2003-08 and coded disbursements relating to reproductive and sexual health activities resulting in the Countdown dataset for 2003-13. We matched this dataset to the 2015 creditor reporting system dataset and coded any unmatched creditor reporting system records. We analysed trends in ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health for the period 2003-13, trends in donor contributions, disbursements to recipient countries, and targeting to need.<h4>Findings</h4>Total ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health reached nearly US$14 billion in 2013, of which 48% supported child health ($6·8 billion), 34% supported reproductive and sexual health ($4·7 billion), and 18% maternal and newborn health ($2·5 billion). ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health increased by 225% in real terms over the period 2003-13. Child health received the most substantial increase in funding since 2003 (286%), followed by reproductive and sexual health (194%), and maternal and newborn health (164%). In 2013, bilateral donors disbursed 59% of all ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health, followed by global health initiatives (23%), and multilateral agencies (13%). Targeting of ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health to countries with the greatest health need seems to have improved over time.<h4>Interpretation</h4>The increase in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health funding over the period 2003-13 is encouraging. Further increases in funding will be needed to accelerate maternal mortality reduction while keeping a high level of investment in sexual and reproductive health and in child health.<h4>Funding</h4>Subgrant OPP1058954 from the US Fund for UNICEF under their Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.