Background Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to "ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages". While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available. MethodsWe estimated domestic health spending, disaggregated by source (government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private) from 1995 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. For disease-specific health spending, we estimated spending for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis for 135 low-income and middle-income countries, and malaria in 106 malaria-endemic countries, from 2000 to 2017. We also estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2019, by source, disbursing development agency, recipient, and health focus area, including DAH for pandemic preparedness. Finally, we estimated future health spending for 195 countries and territories from 2018 until 2030. We report all spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2019 US$, unless otherwise stated. FindingsSince the development and implementation of the SDGs in 2015, global health spending has increased, reaching $7•9 trillion (95% uncertainty interval 7•8-8•0) in 2017 and is expected to increase to $11•0 trillion (10•7-11•2) by 2030. In 2017, in low-income and middle-income countries spending on HIV/AIDS was $20•2 billion (17•0-25•0) and on tuberculosis it was $10•9 billion (10•3-11•8), and in malaria-endemic countries spending on malaria was $5•1 billion (4•9-5•4). Development assistance for health was $40•6 billion in 2019 and HIV/AIDS has been the health focus area to receive the highest contribution since 2004. In 2019, $374 million of DAH was provided for pandemic preparedness, less than 1% of DAH. Although spending has increased across HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria since 2015, spending has not increased in all countries, and outcomes in terms of prevalence, incidence, and per-capita spending have been mixed. The proportion of health spending from pooled sources is expected to increase from 81•6% (81•6-81•7) in 2015 to 83•1% (82•8-83•3) in 2030.Interpretation Health spending on SDG3 priority areas has increased, but not in all countries, and progress towards meeting the SDG3 targets has been mixed and has varied by country and by target. The evidence on the scale-up of spending and improvements in health outcomes suggest a nuanced relationship, such that increases in spending do not always results in improvements in outcomes. Although countries will probably need more resources to achieve SDG3, other constraints in the broader health system such as inefficient allocation of resources across interventions and populations, weak governance systems, human resource shortages, and drug shortages, will also need to be addressed.Funding The Bill & ...

IMPORTANCEMeasuring health care spending by race and ethnicity is important for understanding patterns in utilization and treatment. OBJECTIVE To estimate, identify, and account for differences in health care spending by race and ethnicity from 2002 through 2016 in the US.

Summary Background Estimates of government spending and development assistance for tuberculosis exist, but less is known about out-of-pocket and prepaid private spending. We aimed to provide comprehensive estimates of total spending on tuberculosis in low-income and middle-income countries for 2000–17. Methods We extracted data on tuberculosis spending, unit costs, and health-care use from the WHO global tuberculosis database, Global Fund proposals and reports, National Health Accounts, the WHO-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project database, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Development Assistance for Health Database. We extracted data from at least one of these sources for all 135 low-income and middle-income countries using the World Bank 2019 definitions. We estimated tuberculosis spending by source and function for notified (officially reported) and non-notified tuberculosis cases separately and combined, using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to fill in for missing data and estimate uncertainty. We aggregated estimates of government, out-of-pocket, prepaid private, and development assistance spending on tuberculosis to estimate total spending in 2019 US$. Findings Total spending on tuberculosis in 135 low-income and middle-income countries increased annually by 3·9% (95% CI 3·0 to 4·6), from $5·7 billion (5·2 to 6·5) in 2000 to $10·9 billion (10·3 to 11·8) in 2017. Government spending increased annually by 5·1% (4·4 to 5·7) between 2000 and 2017, and reached $6·9 billion (6·5 to 7·5) or 63·5% (59·2 to 66·8) of all tuberculosis spending in 2017. Of government spending, $5·8 billion (5·6 to 6·1) was spent on notified cases. Out-of-pocket spending decreased annually by 0·8% (−2·9 to 1·3), from $2·4 billion (1·9 to 3·1) in 2000 to $2·1 billion (1·6 to 2·7) in 2017. Development assistance for country-specific spending on tuberculosis increased from $54·6 million in 2000 to $1·1 billion in 2017. Administrative costs and development assistance for global projects related to tuberculosis care increased from $85·3 million in 2000 to $576·2 million in 2017. 30 high tuberculosis burden countries of low and middle income accounted for 73·7% (71·8–75·8) of tuberculosis spending in 2017. Interpretation Despite substantial increases since 2000, funding for tuberculosis is still far short of global financing targets and out-of-pocket spending remains high in resource-constrained countries, posing a barrier to patient's access to care and treatment adherence. Of the 30 countries with a high-burden of tuberculosis, just over half were primarily funded by government, while others, especially lower-middle-income and low-income countries, were still primarily dependent on development assistance for tuberculosis or out-of-pocket health spending. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

IntroductionNational Health Accounts are a significant source of health expenditure data, designed to be comprehensive and comparable across countries. However, there is currently no single repository of this data and even when compiled major gaps persist. This research aims to provide policymakers and researchers with a single repository of available national health expenditures by healthcare functions (ie, services) and providers of such services. Leveraging these data within statistical methods, a complete set of detailed health expenditures is estimated.MethodsA methodical compilation and synthesis of all available national health expenditure reports including disaggregation by healthcare functions and providers was conducted. Using these data, a Bayesian multivariate regression analysis was implemented to estimate national-level health expenditures by the cross-classification of functions and providers for 195 countries, from 2000 to 2017.ResultsThis research used 1662 country-years and 110 070 data points of health expenditures from existing National Health Accounts. The most detailed country-year had 52% of the categories of interest reported. Of all health functions, curative care and medical goods were estimated to make up 51.4% (uncertainty interval (UI) 33.2% to 59.4%) and 17.5% (UI 13.0% to 26.9%) of total global health expenditures in 2017, respectively. Three-quarters of the global health expenditures are allocated to three categories of providers: hospital providers (35.4%, UI 30.3% to 38.9%), providers of ambulatory care (25.5%, UI 21.1% to 28.8%) and retailers of medical goods (14.4%, UI 12.4% to 16.3%). As gross domestic product increases, countries spend more on long-term care and less on preventive care.ConclusionDisaggregated estimates of health expenditures are often unavailable and unable to provide policymakers and researchers a holistic understanding of how expenditures are used. This research aggregates reported data and provides a complete time-series of estimates, with uncertainty, of health expenditures by health functions and providers between 2000 and 2017 for 195 countries.

IntroductionAs the world responds to COVID-19 and aims for the Sustainable Development Goals, the potential for primary healthcare (PHC) is substantial, although the trends and effectiveness of PHC expenditure are unknown. We estimate PHC expenditure for each low-income and middle-income country between 2000 and 2017 and test which health outputs and outcomes were associated with PHC expenditure.MethodsWe used three data sources to estimate PHC expenditures: recently published health expenditure estimates for each low-income and middle-income country, which were constructed using 1662 country-reported National Health Accounts; proprietary data from IQVIA to estimate expenditure of prescribed pharmaceuticals for PHC; and household surveys and costing estimates to estimate inpatient vaginal delivery expenditures. We employed regression analyses to measure the association between PHC expenditures and 15 health outcomes and intermediate health outputs.ResultsPHC expenditures in low-income and middle-income countries increased between 2000 and 2017, from $41 per capita (95% uncertainty interval $33–$49) to $90 ($73–$105). Expenditures for low-income countries plateaued since 2014 at $17 per capita ($15–$19). As national income increased, the proportion of health expenditures on PHC generally decrease; however, the fraction of PHC expenditures spent via ambulatory care providers grew. Increases in the fraction of health expenditures on PHC was associated with lower maternal mortality rate (p value≤0.001), improved coverage of antenatal care visits (p value≤0.001), measles vaccination (p value≤0.001) and an increase in the Health Access and Quality index (p value≤0.05). PHC expenditure was not systematically associated with all-age mortality, communicable and non-communicable disease (NCD) burden.ConclusionPHC expenditures were associated with maternal and child health but were not associated with reduction in health burden for other key causes of disability, such as NCDs. To combat changing disease burdens, policy-makers and health professionals need to adapt primary healthcare to ensure continued impact on emerging health challenges.