17 results on '"common goods for health"'
Search Results
2. When Both Markets and Governments Fail Health
- Author
-
Abdo S. Yazbeck and Agnès Soucat
- Subjects
common goods for health ,market failure ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 ,Public aspects of medicine ,RA1-1270 - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Why Do Societies Ever Produce Common Goods for Health?
- Author
-
William D. Savedoff
- Subjects
common goods for health ,history ,political reforms ,power ,public goods ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 ,Public aspects of medicine ,RA1-1270 - Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. The Case for Public Financing of Environmental Common Goods for Health
- Author
-
Selina Lo, Sylvestre Gaudin, Carlos Corvalan, Alexandra J. Earle, Odd Hanssen, Annette Prüss-Ustun, Maria Neira, and Agnès Soucat
- Subjects
common goods for health ,ecosystem services ,environmental health ,planetary health ,public financing ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 ,Public aspects of medicine ,RA1-1270 - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Common Goods for Health: Economic Rationale and Tools for Prioritization
- Author
-
Sylvestre Gaudin, Peter C. Smith, Agnès Soucat, and Abdo S. Yazbeck
- Subjects
common goods for health ,cost-effectiveness analysis ,disease control priorities ,market failure ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 ,Public aspects of medicine ,RA1-1270 - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Financing Common Goods for Health: Core Government Functions in Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management
- Author
-
David H Peters, Odd Hanssen, Jose Gutierrez, Jonathan Abrahams, and Tolbert Nyenswah
- Subjects
common goods for health ,costing ,emergency and disaster risk management ,epidemic ,health financing ,institutional analysis ,natural disaster ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 ,Public aspects of medicine ,RA1-1270 - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Financing Global Common Goods for Health: When the World is a Country
- Author
-
Gavin Yamey, Dean Jamison, Odd Hanssen, and Agnès Soucat
- Subjects
common goods for health ,global public goods for health ,research and development ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 ,Public aspects of medicine ,RA1-1270 - Abstract
“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.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. The Case for Public Financing of Environmental Common Goods for Health.
- Author
-
Lo, Selina, Gaudin, Sylvestre, Corvalan, Carlos, Earle, Alexandra J., Hanssen, Odd, Prüss-Ustun, Annette, Neira, Maria, and Soucat, Agnès
- Subjects
- *
PUBLIC finance , *HUMANITY , *AIR quality , *BIODIVERSITY , *HABITATS - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Financing Global Common Goods for Health: When the World is a Country.
- Author
-
Yamey, Gavin, Jamison, Dean, Hanssen, Odd, and Soucat, Agnès
- Subjects
- *
MEDICAL care , *STRATEGIC planning , *RESEARCH & development , *PUBLIC goods - Abstract
"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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. When Both Markets and Governments Fail Health.
- Author
-
Yazbeck, Abdo S. and Soucat, Agnès
- Subjects
- *
MOTIVATION (Psychology) , *EBOLA virus , *COMMUNICABLE diseases , *MARKET failure - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. Financing Common Goods for Health: Core Government Functions in Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management.
- Author
-
Peters, David H, Hanssen, Odd, Gutierrez, Jose, Abrahams, Jonathan, and Nyenswah, Tolbert
- Subjects
- *
NATURAL disasters , *EMERGENCY management , *LOW-income countries , *SOCIAL values - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Common Goods for Health: Economic Rationale and Tools for Prioritization.
- Author
-
Gaudin, Sylvestre, Smith, Peter C., Soucat, Agnès, and Yazbeck, Abdo S.
- Subjects
- *
COST effectiveness , *MARKET failure , *PREVENTIVE medicine , *HEALTH status indicators , *PUBLIC finance - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Why Do Societies Ever Produce Common Goods for Health?
- Author
-
Savedoff, William D.
- Subjects
- *
PUBLIC health , *PUBLIC goods , *ENVIRONMENTAL protection , *COMMUNICABLE diseases , *TOBACCO taxes , *CARBON taxes - Abstract
The article explores reasons for producing Common Health Goods (CGH) and the investment in producing the same. Topics include antipollution and safety regulations to curb infectious diseases; taxes imposed on the emission of harmful product like carbon and tobacco; and the approaching political and historical factors that are responsible for the same.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. Financing Global Common Goods for Health: When the World is a Country
- Author
-
Dean T. Jamison, Agnes Soucat, Gavin Yamey, and Odd Hanssen
- Subjects
lcsh:R5-920 ,Economic growth ,Health Priorities ,International Cooperation ,lcsh:Public aspects of medicine ,Financing, Organized ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,lcsh:RA1-1270 ,Health Informatics ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Global Health ,common goods for health ,research and development ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Health Information Management ,global public goods for health ,Taxonomy (general) ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Business ,lcsh:Medicine (General) - Abstract
"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.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. The Case for Public Financing of Environmental Common Goods for Health
- Author
-
Sylvestre Gaudin, Odd Hanssen, Maria Neira, Annette Prüss-Ustün, Selina Lo, Carlos Corvalan, Agnes Soucat, and Alexandra J. Earle
- Subjects
public financing ,Conservation of Natural Resources ,Financing, Government ,050204 development studies ,planetary health ,Health Informatics ,Safeguarding ,Ecosystem services ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Health Information Management ,0502 economics and business ,Sustainable agriculture ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Government ,lcsh:R5-920 ,Public economics ,Corporate governance ,lcsh:Public aspects of medicine ,05 social sciences ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,lcsh:RA1-1270 ,common goods for health ,Crowding out ,Government Programs ,Accountability ,Business ,ecosystem services ,lcsh:Medicine (General) ,Environmental Health ,Public finance - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
16. Financing Common Goods for Health: Core Government Functions in Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management
- Author
-
Jonathan Abrahams, David H. Peters, Odd Hanssen, Jose Gutierrez, and Tolbert Nyenswah
- Subjects
health financing ,natural disaster ,costing ,030231 tropical medicine ,Health Informatics ,emergency and disaster risk management ,epidemic ,03 medical and health sciences ,Indirect costs ,0302 clinical medicine ,Health Information Management ,Per capita ,Institutional analysis ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Activity-based costing ,Natural disaster ,Risk management ,Finance ,Government ,lcsh:R5-920 ,Risk Management ,business.industry ,lcsh:Public aspects of medicine ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,Civil Defense ,lcsh:RA1-1270 ,Health Care Costs ,Investment (macroeconomics) ,common goods for health ,Government Programs ,institutional analysis ,Business ,lcsh:Medicine (General) - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
17. Common Goods for Health: Economic Rationale and Tools for Prioritization
- Author
-
Agnes Soucat, Sylvestre Gaudin, Peter C. Smith, and Abdo S. Yazbeck
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Psychological intervention ,disease control priorities ,Health Informatics ,Context (language use) ,Resource Allocation ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Resource (project management) ,Health Information Management ,Social Justice ,medicine ,Humans ,market failure ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Market failure ,lcsh:R5-920 ,Health economics ,Health Priorities ,lcsh:Public aspects of medicine ,030503 health policy & services ,Public health ,cost-effectiveness analysis ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,lcsh:RA1-1270 ,Cost-effectiveness analysis ,common goods for health ,Economics, Medical ,Risk analysis (engineering) ,Business ,lcsh:Medicine (General) ,0305 other medical science ,Public finance - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.