Cargando…

WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND: Ministers of health, donor agencies, philanthropists, and international agencies will meet at Bamako, Mali, in November, 2008, to review global priorities for health research. These individuals and organisations previously set health priorities for WHO, either through its regular budget...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stuckler, David, King, Lawrence, Robinson, Helen, McKee, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Ltd. 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18984189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61656-6
_version_ 1783522606206418944
author Stuckler, David
King, Lawrence
Robinson, Helen
McKee, Martin
author_facet Stuckler, David
King, Lawrence
Robinson, Helen
McKee, Martin
author_sort Stuckler, David
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Ministers of health, donor agencies, philanthropists, and international agencies will meet at Bamako, Mali, in November, 2008, to review global priorities for health research. These individuals and organisations previously set health priorities for WHO, either through its regular budget or extra-budgetary funds. We asked what insights can be gained as to their priorities from previous decisions within the context of WHO. METHODS: We compared the WHO biennial budgetary allocations with the burden of disease from 1994–95 to 2008–09. We obtained data from publicly available WHO sources and examined whether WHO allocations varied with the burden of disease (defined by death and disability-adjusted life years) by comparing two WHO regions—Western Pacific and Africa—that are at differing stages of epidemiological transition. We further assessed whether the allocations differed on the basis of the source of funds (assessed and voluntary contributions) and the mechanism for deciding how funds were spent. FINDINGS: We noted that WHO budget allocations were heavily skewed toward infectious diseases. In 2006–07, WHO allocated 87% of its total budget to infectious diseases, 12% to non-communicable diseases, and less than 1% to injuries and violence. We recorded a similar distribution of funding in Africa, where nearly three-quarters of mortality is from infectious disease, and in Western Pacific, where three-quarters of mortality is from non-communicable disease. In both regions, injuries received only 1% of total resources. The skew towards infectious diseases was substantially greater for the WHO extra-budget, which is allocated by donors and has risen greatly in recent years, than for the WHO regular budget, which is decided on by member states through democratic mechanisms and has been held at zero nominal growth. INTERPRETATION: Decision makers at Bamako should consider the implications of the present misalignment of global health priorities and disease burden for health research worldwide. Funds allocated by external donors substantially differ from those allocated by WHO member states. The meeting at Bamako provides an opportunity to consider how this disparity might be addressed. FUNDING: None.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7159087
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Elsevier Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71590872020-04-16 WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis Stuckler, David King, Lawrence Robinson, Helen McKee, Martin Lancet Article BACKGROUND: Ministers of health, donor agencies, philanthropists, and international agencies will meet at Bamako, Mali, in November, 2008, to review global priorities for health research. These individuals and organisations previously set health priorities for WHO, either through its regular budget or extra-budgetary funds. We asked what insights can be gained as to their priorities from previous decisions within the context of WHO. METHODS: We compared the WHO biennial budgetary allocations with the burden of disease from 1994–95 to 2008–09. We obtained data from publicly available WHO sources and examined whether WHO allocations varied with the burden of disease (defined by death and disability-adjusted life years) by comparing two WHO regions—Western Pacific and Africa—that are at differing stages of epidemiological transition. We further assessed whether the allocations differed on the basis of the source of funds (assessed and voluntary contributions) and the mechanism for deciding how funds were spent. FINDINGS: We noted that WHO budget allocations were heavily skewed toward infectious diseases. In 2006–07, WHO allocated 87% of its total budget to infectious diseases, 12% to non-communicable diseases, and less than 1% to injuries and violence. We recorded a similar distribution of funding in Africa, where nearly three-quarters of mortality is from infectious disease, and in Western Pacific, where three-quarters of mortality is from non-communicable disease. In both regions, injuries received only 1% of total resources. The skew towards infectious diseases was substantially greater for the WHO extra-budget, which is allocated by donors and has risen greatly in recent years, than for the WHO regular budget, which is decided on by member states through democratic mechanisms and has been held at zero nominal growth. INTERPRETATION: Decision makers at Bamako should consider the implications of the present misalignment of global health priorities and disease burden for health research worldwide. Funds allocated by external donors substantially differ from those allocated by WHO member states. The meeting at Bamako provides an opportunity to consider how this disparity might be addressed. FUNDING: None. Elsevier Ltd. 2008 2008-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7159087/ /pubmed/18984189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61656-6 Text en Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Stuckler, David
King, Lawrence
Robinson, Helen
McKee, Martin
WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis
title WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis
title_full WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis
title_fullStr WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis
title_full_unstemmed WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis
title_short WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis
title_sort who's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18984189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61656-6
work_keys_str_mv AT stucklerdavid whosbudgetaryallocationsandburdenofdiseaseacomparativeanalysis
AT kinglawrence whosbudgetaryallocationsandburdenofdiseaseacomparativeanalysis
AT robinsonhelen whosbudgetaryallocationsandburdenofdiseaseacomparativeanalysis
AT mckeemartin whosbudgetaryallocationsandburdenofdiseaseacomparativeanalysis