Growth and stagnation in global health funding

Amanda Glassman of CGD shares the graph below from the latest IHME “Financing Global Health”¬†report, which tells the top-line story from the report in one neat picture:

This year’s report is subtitled, “The End of the Golden Age?” Maybe. I’d start with Amanda’s analysis here, then dive into the report overview¬†[PDF].

18

02 2013

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

The upper is the most recent comment

  1. George D #
    1

    If it represents a plateau (rather than stagnation, a word with negative connotations) that sustains for a period of time, then it represents a maintenance of what has been achieved in an incredible decade of progress.

    There’s considerably more country co-financing than there was even five years ago, and the large bilateral and multilateral agencies have been drivers of this. More importantly has been the growth in developing countries and the democratic accountability for health budgets that has strengthened in a lot of places. If this sustains, and the plateaued global health aid budget sustains, the amount going to health will continue to increase and we’ll see the gains we need. I’m optimistic that this outcome is closer to what will happen than some of the more negative voices we’ve heard recently.

  2. 2

    I think plateau vs. stagnation is mostly semantics, and that the negative connotation is justified if you think continuous increases are good and/or necessary. Glass half-full vs. half-empty, I guess?

    Your point re: country co-financing is well taken though. I’d love to see a similar chart with that taken into account, though I imagine it would be even more difficult to define what to include in those numbers. It might be instructive to look at a region (SSA for example) and look at per capita health expenditures – as the sum of government spending and these international health funding streams…



Your Comment