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 & ...

No abstract

Background Coverage rates for immunization have dropped in lower income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns regarding potential outbreaks and premature death. In order to re-invigorate immunization service delivery, sufficient financing must be made available from all sources, and particularly from government resources. This study utilizes the most recent data available to provide an updated comparison of available data sources on government spending on immunization. Methods We examined data from WHO/UNICEF’s Joint Reporting Form (JRF), country Comprehensive Multi-Year Plan (cMYP), country co-financing data for Gavi, and WHO National Health Accounts (NHA) on government spending on immunization for consistency by comparing routine and vaccine spending where both values were reported. We also examined spending trends across time, quantified underreporting and utilized concordance analyses to assess the magnitude of difference between the data sources. Results Routine immunization spending reported through the cMYP was nearly double that reported through the JRF ( rho = 0.64, 95% 0.53 to 0.77) and almost four times higher than that reported through the NHA on average ( rho = 3.71, 95% 1.00 to 13.87). Routine immunization spending from the JRF was comparable to spending reported in the NHA ( rho = 1.30, 95% 0.97 to 1.75) and vaccine spending from the JRF was comparable to that from the cMYP data ( rho = 0.97, 95% 0.84 to 1.12). Vaccine spending from both the JRF and cMYP was higher than Gavi co-financing by a at least two ( rho = 2.66, 95% 2.45 to 2.89) and ( rho = 2.66, 95% 2.15 to 3.30), respectively. Implications Overall, our comparative analysis provides a degree of confidence in the validity of existing reporting mechanisms for immunization spending while highlighting areas for potential improvements. Users of these data sources should factor these into consideration when utilizing the data. Additionally, partners should work with governments to encourage more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate reporting of vaccine and immunization spending.