为全球健康共同利益提供国际资金:利用债权人报告系统和G-FINDER数据库进行分析

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Systems & Reform Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI:10.1080/23288604.2019.1663646
M. Schäferhoff, P. Chodavadia, Sebastian Martinez, Kaci Kennedy McDade, Sara Fewer, S. Silva, D. Jamison, G. Yamey
{"title":"为全球健康共同利益提供国际资金:利用债权人报告系统和G-FINDER数据库进行分析","authors":"M. Schäferhoff, P. Chodavadia, Sebastian Martinez, Kaci Kennedy McDade, Sara Fewer, S. Silva, D. Jamison, G. Yamey","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2019.1663646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract West Africa’s Ebola epidemic of 2014–2016 exposed, among other problems, the under-funding of transnational global health activities known as global common goods for health (CGH), global functions such as pandemic preparedness and research and development (R&D) for neglected diseases. To mobilize sustainable funding for global CGH, it is critical first to understand existing financing flowing to different types of global CGH. In this study, we estimate trends in international spending for global CGH in 2013, 2015, and 2017, encompassing the era before and after the Ebola epidemic. We use a measure of international funding that combines official development assistance (ODA) for health with additional international spending on R&D for diseases of poverty, a measure called ODA+. We classify ODA+ into funding for three global functions—provision of global public goods, management of cross-border externalities, and fostering of global health leadership and stewardship—and country-specific aid. International funding for global functions increased between 2013 and 2015 by $1.4 billion to a total of $7.3 billion in 2015. It then declined to $7.0 billion in 2017, accounting for 24% of all ODA+ in 2017. These findings provide empirical evidence of the reactive nature of international funders for global CGH. While international funders increased funding for global functions in response to the Ebola outbreak, they failed to sustain that funding. To meet future global health challenges proactively, international funders should allocate more funding for global functions.","PeriodicalId":46168,"journal":{"name":"Health Systems & Reform","volume":"131 1","pages":"350 - 365"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Funding for Global Common Goods for Health: An Analysis Using the Creditor Reporting System and G-FINDER Databases\",\"authors\":\"M. Schäferhoff, P. Chodavadia, Sebastian Martinez, Kaci Kennedy McDade, Sara Fewer, S. Silva, D. Jamison, G. Yamey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23288604.2019.1663646\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract West Africa’s Ebola epidemic of 2014–2016 exposed, among other problems, the under-funding of transnational global health activities known as global common goods for health (CGH), global functions such as pandemic preparedness and research and development (R&D) for neglected diseases. To mobilize sustainable funding for global CGH, it is critical first to understand existing financing flowing to different types of global CGH. In this study, we estimate trends in international spending for global CGH in 2013, 2015, and 2017, encompassing the era before and after the Ebola epidemic. We use a measure of international funding that combines official development assistance (ODA) for health with additional international spending on R&D for diseases of poverty, a measure called ODA+. We classify ODA+ into funding for three global functions—provision of global public goods, management of cross-border externalities, and fostering of global health leadership and stewardship—and country-specific aid. International funding for global functions increased between 2013 and 2015 by $1.4 billion to a total of $7.3 billion in 2015. It then declined to $7.0 billion in 2017, accounting for 24% of all ODA+ in 2017. These findings provide empirical evidence of the reactive nature of international funders for global CGH. While international funders increased funding for global functions in response to the Ebola outbreak, they failed to sustain that funding. To meet future global health challenges proactively, international funders should allocate more funding for global functions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Systems & Reform\",\"volume\":\"131 1\",\"pages\":\"350 - 365\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Systems & Reform\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2019.1663646\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Systems & Reform","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2019.1663646","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

2014-2016年西非埃博拉疫情暴露出跨国全球卫生活动(即全球卫生共同产品)、大流行防范和被忽视疾病研发(R&D)等全球职能资金不足等问题。要为全球协调发展动员可持续资金,首先要了解流向不同类型全球协调发展的现有资金。在本研究中,我们估计了2013年、2015年和2017年全球CGH的国际支出趋势,包括埃博拉疫情之前和之后的时代。我们使用一种国际资金衡量标准,将用于卫生的官方发展援助与用于防治贫困疾病的额外国际研发支出结合起来,这种衡量标准称为官方发展援助+。我们将官方发展援助+分为三项全球职能:提供全球公共产品、管理跨境外部性、促进全球卫生领导和管理以及针对具体国家的援助。2013年至2015年间,全球职能的国际资金增加了14亿美元,2015年达到73亿美元。然后在2017年下降到70亿美元,占2017年所有官方发展援助+的24%。这些发现为全球CGH的国际资助者的反应性提供了经验证据。虽然国际资助者为应对埃博拉疫情的全球职能增加了资金,但他们未能维持这种资金。为了积极应对未来的全球卫生挑战,国际资助者应为全球职能拨出更多资金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
International Funding for Global Common Goods for Health: An Analysis Using the Creditor Reporting System and G-FINDER Databases
Abstract West Africa’s Ebola epidemic of 2014–2016 exposed, among other problems, the under-funding of transnational global health activities known as global common goods for health (CGH), global functions such as pandemic preparedness and research and development (R&D) for neglected diseases. To mobilize sustainable funding for global CGH, it is critical first to understand existing financing flowing to different types of global CGH. In this study, we estimate trends in international spending for global CGH in 2013, 2015, and 2017, encompassing the era before and after the Ebola epidemic. We use a measure of international funding that combines official development assistance (ODA) for health with additional international spending on R&D for diseases of poverty, a measure called ODA+. We classify ODA+ into funding for three global functions—provision of global public goods, management of cross-border externalities, and fostering of global health leadership and stewardship—and country-specific aid. International funding for global functions increased between 2013 and 2015 by $1.4 billion to a total of $7.3 billion in 2015. It then declined to $7.0 billion in 2017, accounting for 24% of all ODA+ in 2017. These findings provide empirical evidence of the reactive nature of international funders for global CGH. While international funders increased funding for global functions in response to the Ebola outbreak, they failed to sustain that funding. To meet future global health challenges proactively, international funders should allocate more funding for global functions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
9.80%
发文量
35
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Strengths and Weaknesses of Strategic Health Purchasing for Universal Health Coverage in Rwanda Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Mapping: A Spotlight on Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme Strategic Health Purchasing in Nigeria: Investigating Governance and Institutional Capacities within Federal Tax-Funded Health Schemes and the Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme Integrating Venezuelan Migrants into the Colombian Health System during COVID-19 Decentralization Can Improve Equity, but Can It Be Sustained?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1