Search

AbstractSafeguarding the continued existence of humanity requires building societies that cause minimal disruptions of the essential planetary systems that support life. While major successes have been achieved in improving health in recent decades, threats from the environment may undermine these gains, particularly among vulnerable populations and communities. In this article, we review the rationale for governments to invest in environmental Common Goods for Health (CGH) and identify functions that qualify as such, including interventions to improve air quality, develop sustainable food systems, preserve biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage carbon sinks. Exploratory empirical analyses reveal that public spending on environmental goods does not crowd out public spending on health. Additionally, we find that improved governance is associated with better performance in environmental health outcomes, while the degrees of people’s participation in the political system together with voice and accountability are positively associated with performance in ambient air quality and biodiversity/habitat. We provide a list of functions that should be prioritized by governments across different sectors, and present preliminary costing of environmental CGH. As shown by the costing estimates presented here, these actions need not be especially expensive. Indeed, they are potentially cost-saving. The paper concludes with case examples of national governments that have successfully prioritized and financed environmental CGH. Because societal preferences may vary across time, government leaders seeking to protect the health of future generations must look beyond electoral cycles to enact policies that protect the environment and finance environmental CGH.

AbstractThis paper presents the economic rationale for treating Common Goods for Health (CGH) as priorities for public intervention. We use the concept of market failure as a central argument for identifying CGH and apply cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a normative tool to prioritize CGH interventions in public finance decisions. We show that CGH are consistent with traditional lists of public health core functions but cannot be identified separately from non-CGH activities in such lists. We propose a public finance decision tree, adapted from existing health economics tools, to identify CGH activities within the set of cost-effective interventions for the health sector. We test the framework by applying it to the 2018 Disease Control Priority (DCP) list of interventions recommended for public funding and find that less than 10% of cost-effective interventions unconditionally qualify as CGH, while another two-thirds may or may not qualify depending on context and form. We conclude that while CEA can be used as a tool to prioritize CGH, the scarcity of such analyses for CGH interventions may be partly responsible for the lack of priority given to them. We encourage further research to address methodological and resource challenges to assessing the cost-effectiveness of CGH intervention packages, in particular those involving large investments and long-term benefits.

ABSTRACTDespite an unprecedented increase in official development assistance to health in the last 25 years, there is no systematic way to assess dominant patterns in health-system challenges and opportunities in developing countries. Developing a new global instrument for and by donors and development partners would be resource-intensive and cumbersome. In this article, we demonstrate that Public Expenditure Reviews (PERs) can be used to reveal such patterns. PERs are analytical reports financed and conducted by the World Bank that have been used for years to identify and prioritize country-specific health sector reform needs. In order to extend their use beyond the country level, a reading instrument is developed in the form of a questionnaire to systematically identify the different themes addressed in each PER. All PERs published over a period of ten years are reviewed for health sector content. A new database is created with data on 70 PERs, spanning 61 countries. Analysis of the data reveals dominant themes globally, patterns across development levels, and some regional variations. Our main finding is that issues related to equity strongly dominate and are relevant across all regions and income groups. In addition, the article highlights the usefulness of PERs beyond providing country-specific information. Without losing the country-focus and flexibility of PERs, thoughtful and minor investments in how Health PERs are conducted can create a relatively cheap and strongly operational instrument for building global knowledge bases on health sector needs and challenges.