Globalization and Health最新文献

Background: The persistently high out-of-pocket health spending (OOPHE) in Africa raise significant concern about the prospect of reaching SDG health targets and UHC. The study examines the convergence hypothesis of OOPHE in 40 African countries from 2000 to 2019.

Methods: We exploit the $\text{log}t$ , club clustering, and merging methods on a panel of dataset obtained from the World Development Indicators, the World Governance Indicators, and the World Health Organization. Then, we employ the multilevel linear mixed effect model to examine whether countries' macro-level characteristics affect the disparities in OOPHE in the African regional economic communities (RECs).

Results: The results show evidence of full panel divergence, indicating persistent disparities in OOPHE over time. However, we found three convergence clubs and a divergent group for the OOPHE per capita and as a share of the total health expenditure. The results also show that convergence does not only occur among countries affiliated with the same regional economic grouping, suggesting disparities within the regional groupings. The findings reveal that countries' improved access to sanitation and quality of governance, increased childhood DPT immunization coverage, increased share of the elderly population, life expectancy at birth, external health expenditure per capita, and ICT (information and communication technology) significantly affect within-regional groupings' disparities in OOPHE per capita. The results also show that an increasing countries' share of elderly and younger populations, access to basic sanitation, ICT, trade GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth, childhood DPT immunization coverage, and antiretroviral therapy coverage have significant impacts on the share of OOPHE to total health expenditure within the regional groupings.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is a need to develop policies that vary across the convergence clubs. These countries should increase their health services coverage, adopt planned urbanization, and coordinate trade and ICT access policies. Policymakers should consider hidden costs associated with access to childhood immunization services that may lead to catastrophic health spending.

Background: Unequal and inequitable access to Covid-19 vaccines in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs) was a major political, ethical and public health failure in the pandemic. However, vaccine developers' practices were not monolithic, but rather, took diverse approaches to supplying different countries, with important implications for global access.

Results: Using data on R&D investments, regulatory approvals, manufacturing and purchase agreements, and vaccine deliveries, we identified six distinct innovation models that apply across the 14 COVID-19 vaccines with more international presence from 2020-2022. "Western Early Arrivers" Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna supplied the largest volumes quickly and prioritized high-income countries (HICs) from registration to vaccine delivery. "Western Latecomers" Janssen and Novavax supplied intermediate volumes later, also prioritizing HICs but with a greater proportion to L&MICs. "Major Chinese Developers" Sinopharm and Sinovac supplied intermediate volumes early, primarily to middle-income countries (MICs). "Russian Developer" Gamaleya completed development early but ultimately supplied small volumes, primarily to middle-income countries (MICs). "Cosmopolitan Developer" Oxford/AstraZeneca supplied large volumes early to HICs and MICs at the lowest prices. Finally, "Small MIC Developers" CanSino, Bharat Biotech, Medigen, Finlay Institute and the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CGEB), exported relatively small volumes to a few MICs. Low-income countries (LICs) were not targeted by any developer, and received far fewer doses, later, than any other income group. Almost all developers received public funding and other forms of support, but we found little evidence that such support was leveraged to expand global access.

Conclusions: Each of the six innovation models has different implications for which countries get access to which vaccines, how quickly, and at which prices. Each offers different strengths and weaknesses for achieving equitable access. Our findings also suggest that Western firms had the greatest capacity to develop and deliver vaccines quickly during the pandemic, but such capacity is rapidly becoming more globally distributed with MICs playing a significant role, especially in supplying other MICs. Given the critical role of public support in enabling pandemic vaccine development and supply, governments have both the capacity and responsibility to craft international rules that will make responses to future pandemics more equitable and effective.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) causes high levels of global mortality. There is a global need to develop new antimicrobials to replace those whose efficacy is being eroded, but limited incentive for companies to engage in R&D, and a limited pipeline of new drugs. There is a recognised need for policies in the form of 'push' and 'pull' incentives to support this R&D. This article discusses China, a country with a rapidly emerging pharmaceuticals and biotech (P&B) sector, and a history of using coordinated innovation and industrial policy for strategic and developmental ends. We investigate the extent to which 'government guidance funds' (GGFs), strategic industrial financing vehicles (a 'push' mechanism), support the development of antimicrobials as part of China's 'mission-driven' approach to innovation and industrial policy. GGFs are potentially globally significant, having raised approximately US$ 872 billion to 2020.

Results: GGFs have a substantial role in P&B, but almost no role in developing new antimicrobials, despite this being a priority in the country's AMR National Action Plan. There are multiple constraints on GGFs' ability to function as part of a mission-driven approach to innovation at present, linked to their business model and the absence of standard markets for antimicrobials (or other effective 'pull' mechanisms), their unclear 'social' mandate, and limited technical capacity. However, GGFs are highly responsive to changing policy demands and can be used strategically by government in response to changing needs.

Conclusions: Despite the very limited role of GGFs in developing new antimicrobials, their responsiveness to policy means they are likely to play a larger role as P&B becomes an increasingly important component of China's innovation and industrial strategy. However, for GGFs to effectively play that role, there is a need for reforms to their governance model, an increase in technical and managerial capacity, and supporting ('pull') incentives, particularly for pharmaceuticals such as antimicrobials for which there is strong social need, but a limited market. Given GGFs' scale and strategic importance, they deserve further research as China's P&B sector becomes increasingly globally important, and as the Chinese government commits to a larger role in global health.

The culling of animals that are infected, or suspected to be infected, with COVID-19 has fuelled outcry. What might have contributed to the ongoing debates and discussions about animal rights protection amid global health crises is the lack of a unified understanding and internationally agreed-upon definition of "One Health". The term One Health is often utilised to describe the imperative to protect the health of humans, animals, and plants, along with the overarching ecosystem in an increasingly connected and globalized world. However, to date, there is a dearth of research on how to balance public health decisions that could impact all key stakeholders under the umbrella of One Health, particularly in contexts where human suffering has been immense. To shed light on the issue, this paper discusses whether One Health means "human-centred connected health" in a largely human-dominated planet, particularly amid crises like COVID-19. The insights of this study could help policymakers make more informed decisions that could effectively and efficiently protect human health while balancing the health and well-being of the rest of the inhabitants of our shared planet Earth.