Vertical and horizontal equity of funding for malaria control: a global multisource funding analysis for 2006–2010

Abstract

BackgroundInternational and domestic funding for malaria is critically important to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Its equitable distribution is key in ensuring that the available, scarce, resources are deployed efficiently for improved progress and a sustained response that enables eradication.MethodsWe used concentration curves and concentration indices to assess inequalities in malaria funding by different donors across countries, measuring both horizontal and vertical equity. Horizontal equity assesses whether funding is distributed in proportion to health needs, whereas vertical equity examines whether unequal economic needs are addressed by appropriately unequal funding. We computed the Health Inequity Index and the Kakwani Index to assess the former and the latter, respectively. We used data from the World Bank, Global Fund, Unicef, President’s Malaria Initiative and the Malaria Atlas Project to assess the distribution of funding against need for 94 countries. National gross domestic product per capita was used as a proxy for economic need and ‘population-at-risk’ for health need.FindingsThe level and direction of inequity varies across funding sources. Unicef and the President’s Malaria Initiative were the most horizontally inequitable (pro-poor). Inequity as shown by the Health Inequity Index for Unicef decreased from −0.40 (P<0.05) in 2006 to −0.25 (P<0.10) in 2008, and increased again to −0.58 (P<0.01) in 2009. For President’s Malaria Initiative, it increased from −0.19 (P>0.10) in 2006 to −0.38 (P<0.05) in 2008, and decreased to −0.36 (P<0.10) in 2010. Domestic funding was inequitable (pro-rich) with inequity increasing from 0.28 (P<0.01) in 2006 to 0.39 (P<0.01) in 2009, and then decreasing to 0.22 (P<0.10) in 2010. Funding from the World Bank and the Global Fund was distributed proportionally according to need. In terms of vertical inequity, all sources were progressive: Unicef and the President’s Malaria Initiative were the most progressive with the Kakwani Indices ranging from −0.97 (P<0.01) to −1.29 (P<0.01), and −0.90 (P<0.01) to −1.10 (P<0.01), respectively.ConclusionOur results suggest that external funding of malaria treatment tends to be allocated to countries with higher health and economic need but not in proportion to their relative health need and income when compared to other countries. While malaria eradication might require funders to disproportionally allocate funding that goes beyond (financial and health) need, our analysis highlights that funders might potentially be targeting in excess certain countries. Regular assessments of need and greater coordination among donors are necessary for equitable resource allocation, to improve and sustain progress with malaria control and elimination.

Measuring geographical disparities in England at the time of COVID-19: results using a composite indicator of population vulnerability

“…Evidence from previous infectious disease outbreaks, such as malaria, warns that funding during emergencies tend to be provided in line with health and economic need, but biassed towards richer areas. 54 In light of the correlation between CCG-level vulnerability and deprivation reported in this paper, the distribution of resources in times of emergencies should be guided by communitylevel factors. Guidelines for 'fair allocation of resources' should be developed based on direct knowledge about local communities-not only considering the health impact of such choices, but also long-run economic and social impacts for the community.…”

Resource allocation strategies for insecticide-treated bed nets to achieve malaria eradication

“…An initial focus on high-and moderatetransmission settings is further supported by our results showing that a balance can be found between achieving close to optimal case reductions while also progressing towards elimination in the maximum number of settings. Even within a single country, targeting interventions to local hot-spots has been shown to lead to higher cost savings than universal application, [28] and could lead to elimination in settings where untargeted interventions would have little impact. [25] Assessing optimal funding patterns is a global priority due to the funding gap between supply and demand for resources for malaria control and elimination.…”

“…This illustrates the possibility that such an allocation approach can potentially target certain countries disproportionally and result in further inequities in health outcomes. [28] From an international funder perspective, achieving vertical equity might therefore also encompass higher disbursements to countries with lower affordability of malaria interventions, [28] as reflected in the Global Fund's proportional allocation formula which accounts for the economic capacity of countries. [14] While our models are based on country patterns of transmission settings and corresponding populations in 2000, there are several factors leading to heterogeneity in transmission dynamics at the national and sub-national level which were not modelled and limit our conclusions.…”

Synthesis of Policies Applied in the Fight Against Malaria in two African Countries at different Stages of Intervention (Model of Burkina Faso and Model of Senegal) using Data from Surveys and Literature

“…It is crucial that the use of funds responds to the real needs of a country. A study by Barrenho demonstrated the importance of effective coordination among different donors of malaria funds if a good level of performance in relevant policies is to be achieved [37].…”