Search

This paper presents the rationale and motivation for countries and the global development community to tackle a critical set of functions in the health sector that appear to be under-prioritized and underfunded. The recent eruptions of Ebola outbreaks in Africa and other communicable diseases like Zika and SARS elsewhere led scientific and medical commissions to call for global action. The calls for action motivated the World Health Organization (WHO) to respond by defining a new construct within the health sector: Common Good for Health (CGH). While the starting point for developing the CGH construct was the re-emergence of communicable diseases, it extends to additional outcomes resulting from failures to act and finance within and outside the health sector. This paper summarizes global evidence on failures to address CGHs effectively, identifies potential reasons for the public and private sectors’ failures to respond, and lays out the first phase of the WHO program as represented by the papers in this special issue of Health Systems & Reform.

"Global functions" of health cooperation refer to those activities that go beyond the boundaries of individual nations to address transnational issues. This paper begins by presenting a taxonomy of global functions and laying out the key value propositions of investing in such functions. Next, it examines the current funding flows to global functions and the estimated price tag, which is large. Given that existing financing mechanisms have not closed the gap, it then proposes a suite of options for directing additional funding to global functions and discusses the governance of this additional funding. These options are organized into resource mobilization mechanisms, pooling approaches, and strategic purchasing of global functions. Given its legitimacy, convening power, and role in setting global norms and standards, the World Health Organization (WHO) is uniquely placed among global health organizations to provide the overarching governance of global functions. Therefore, the paper includes an assessment of WHO's financial situation. Finally, the paper concludes with reflections on the future of aid for health and its role in supporting global functions. The concluding section also summarizes a set of key priorities in financing global functions for health.

The world, and we human beings who live in it, would be better off if we were to invest more resources and attention in producing common goods for health (CGH), such as anti-pollution and safety re...

Safeguarding 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.

In the absence of good data on the costs and comparative benefits from investing in health emergency and disaster risk management (EDRM), governments have been reluctant to invest adequately in systems to reduce the risks and consequences of emergencies and disasters. Yet they spend heavily on their response. We describe a set of key functional areas for investment and action in health EDRM, and calculate the costs needed to establish and operate basic health EDRM services in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on management of epidemics and disasters from natural hazards. We find that health EDRM costs are affordable for most governments. They range from an additional 4.33 USD capital and 4.16 USD annual recurrent costs per capita in low-income countries to 1.35 USD capital to 1.41 USD recurrent costs in upper middle-income countries. These costs pale in comparison to the costs of not acting—the direct and indirect costs of epidemics and other emergencies from natural hazards are more than 20-fold higher. We also examine options for the institutional arrangements needed to design and implement health EDRM. We discuss the need for creating adaptive institutions, strengthening capacities of countries, communities and health systems for managing risks of emergencies, using “all-of-society” and “all-of-state institutions” approaches, and applying lessons about rules and regulations, behavioral norms, and organizational structures to better implement health EDRM. The economic and social value, and the feasibility of institutional options for implementing health EDRM systems should compel governments to invest in these common goods for health that strengthen national health security.

This 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.