Person:

Shrime, Mark

Objective: The funds available for global surgical delivery, capacity building and research are unknown and presumed to be low. Meanwhile, conditions amenable to surgery are estimated to account for nearly 30% of the global burden of disease. We describe funds given to these efforts from the USA, the world's largest donor nation. Design: Retrospective database review. US Agency for International Development (USAID), National Institute of Health (NIH), Foundation Center and registered US charitable organisations were searched for financial data on any organisation giving exclusively to surgical care in low and middle income countries (LMICs). For USAID, NIH and Foundation Center all available data for all years were included. The five recent years of financial data per charitable organisation were included. All nominal dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 US dollars. Setting: USA. Participants: USAID, NIH, Foundation Center, Charitable Organisations. Primary and secondary outcome measures Cumulative funds appropriated to global surgery. Results: 22 NIH funded projects (totalling $31.3 million) were identified, primarily related to injury and trauma. Six relevant USAID projects were identified—all obstetric fistula care totalling $438 million. A total of $105 million was given to universities and charitable organisations by US foundations for 12 different surgical specialties. 95 US charitable organisations representing 14 specialties totalled revenue of $2.67 billion and expenditure of $2.5 billion. Conclusions and relevance Current funding flows to surgical care in LMICs are poorly understood. US funding predominantly comes from private charitable organisations, is often narrowly focused and does not always reflect local needs or support capacity building. Improving surgical care, and embedding it within national health systems in LMICs, will likely require greater financial investment. Tracking funds targeting surgery helps to quantify and clarify current investments and funding gaps, ensures resources materialise from promises and promotes transparency within global health financing.

Objective: This study was designed to propose a classification scheme for platforms of surgical delivery in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to review the literature documenting their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and role in training. Approximately 28 % of the global burden of disease is surgical. In LMICs, much of this burden is borne by a rapidly growing international charitable sector, in fragmented platforms ranging from short-term trips to specialized hospitals. Systematic reviews of these platforms, across regions and across disease conditions, have not been performed. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed from 1960 to 2013. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. Bibliographies of retrieved studies were searched by hand. Of the 8,854 publications retrieved, 104 were included. Results: Surgery by international charitable organizations is delivered under two, specialized hospitals and temporary platforms. Among the latter, short-term surgical missions were the most common and appeared beneficial when no other option was available. Compared to other platforms, however, worse results and a lack of cost-effectiveness curtailed their role. Self-contained temporary platforms that did not rely on local infrastructure showed promise, based on very few studies. Specialized hospitals provided effective treatment and appeared sustainable; cost-effectiveness evidence was limited. Conclusions: Because the charitable sector delivers surgery in vastly divergent ways, systematic review of these platforms has been difficult. This paper provides a framework from which to study these platforms for surgery in LMICs. Given the available evidence, self-contained temporary platforms and specialized surgical centers appear to provide more effective and cost-effective care than short-term surgical mission trips, except when no other delivery platform exists.

Background: Brazil boasts a health scheme that aspires to provide universal coverage, but its surgical system has rarely been analyzed. In an effort to strengthen surgical systems worldwide, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed collection of six standardized indicators: two-hour access to surgery, surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate (POMR), and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. This study aims to characterize the Brazilian surgical health system with these newly devised indicators while gaining understanding on the complexity of the indicators themselves. Methods: Using Brazil’s national healthcare database, commonly reported healthcare variables were used to calculate or simulate the six surgical indicators. Access to surgery was calculated using hospital locations, surgical workforce density was calculated using locations of surgeons, anesthesiologists and obstetricians (SAO), and surgical volume and POMR were identified with surgical procedure codes. The rates of protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure were modelled using cost of inpatient hospitalization and a gamma distribution of incomes based on GINI and GDP/capita. Findings: In 2014, SAO density is 34·7/100,000 population, surgical volume is 4,433 procedures/100,000 people and POMR is 1·71%. 79·4% of surgical patients are protected against impoverishing expenditure and 84·6% were protected against catastrophic expenditure due to surgery each year. Two-hour access to surgery was not able to be calculated from national health data, but a proxy measure suggested that 97·2% of the population has two-hour access to a hospital that may be able to provide surgery. Geographic disparities were seen in all indicators. Interpretation: Brazil‘s public surgical system meets several key benchmarks. Geographic disparities, however, are substantial and raise concerns of equity. Policies should focus on stimulating appropriate geographic allocation of the surgical workforce. In some cases, where benchmarks for each indicator are met, supplemental analysis can further inform our understanding of health systems. This measured and systematic evaluation of surgical systems should be encouraged for all nations seeking to better understand their surgical systems. Funding: There was no funding for this study.

Background: The assessment of the economic burden of surgical disease is integral to determining allocation of resources for health globally. We estimate the economic gain realised over an 11-year period resulting from a vertical surgical programme addressing cleft lip (CL) and cleft palate (CP). Methods: The database from a large non-governmental organisation (Smile Train) over an 11-year period was analysed. Incidence-based disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted through the programme were calculated, discounted 3%, using disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study and an effectiveness factor for each surgical intervention. The effectiveness factor allowed for the lack of 100% resolution of the disability from the operation. We used the value of lost welfare approach, based on the concept of the value of a statistical life (VSL), to assess the economic gain associated with each operation. Using income elasticities (IEs) tailored to the income level of each country, a country-specific VSL was calculated and the VSL-year (VSLY) was determined. The VSLY is the economic value of a DALY, and the DALYs averted were converted to economic gain per patient and aggregated to give a total value and an average per patient. Sensitivity analyses were performed based on the variations of IE applied for each country. Results: Each CL operation averted 2.2 DALYs on average and each CP operation 3.3. Total averted DALYs were 1 325 678 (CP 686 577 and CL 639 102). The economic benefit from the programme was between US$7.9 and US$20.7 billion. Per patient, the average benefit was between US$16 133 and US$42 351. Expense per DALY averted was estimated to be $149. Conclusions: Addressing basic surgical needs in developing countries provides a massive economic boost through improved health. Expansion of surgical capacity in the developing world is of significant economic and health value and should be a priority in global health efforts.

The Millennium Development Goals have ended and the Sustainable Development Goals have begun, marking a shift in the global health landscape. The frame of reference has changed from a focus on 8 development priorities to an expansive set of 17 interrelated goals intended to improve the well-being of all people. In this time of change, several groups, including the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, have brought a critical problem to the fore: 5 billion people lack access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. The magnitude of this problem and the world's new focus on strengthening health systems mandate reimagined roles for and renewed commitments from high income country actors in global surgery. To discuss the way forward, on 6 May 2015, the Commission held its North American launch event in Boston, Massachusetts. Panels of experts outlined the current state of knowledge and agreed on the roles of surgical colleges and academic medical centres; trainees and training programmes; academia; global health funders; the biomedical devices industry, and news media and advocacy organisations in building sustainable, resilient surgical systems. This paper summarises these discussions and serves as a consensus statement providing practical advice to these groups. It traces a common policy agenda between major actors and provides a roadmap for maximising benefit to surgical patients worldwide. To close the access gap by 2030, individuals and organisations must work collectively, interprofessionally and globally. High income country actors must abandon colonial narratives and work alongside low and middle income country partners to build the surgical systems of the future.

Background. The recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals call for the end of poverty and the equitable provision of healthcare. These goals are often at odds, however: health seeking can lead to catastrophic spending, an outcome for which cancer patients and the poor in resource-limited settings are at particularly high risk. How various health policies affect the additional aims of financial wellbeing and equity is poorly understood. This paper evaluates the health, financial, and equity impacts of governmental and charitable policies for surgical oncology in a resource-limited setting.

Methods. Three charitable platforms for surgical oncology delivery in Uganda were compared to six governmental policies aimed at improving healthcare access. An extended cost-effectiveness analysis using an agent-based simulation model examined the numbers of lives saved, catastrophic expenditure averted, impoverishment averted, costs, and the distribution of benefits across the wealth spectrum.

Findings. Of the nine policies and platforms evaluated, two were able to provide simultaneous health and financial benefits efficiently and equitably: mobile surgical units and governmental policies that simultaneously address surgical scaleup, the cost of surgery, and the cost of transportation. Policies that only remove user fees are dominated, as is the commonly employed short-term “surgical mission trip”. These results are robust to scenario and sensitivity analyses.

Interpretation. The most common platforms for increasing access to surgical care appear unable to provide health and financial risk protection equitably. On the other hand, mobile surgical units, to date an underutilized delivery platform, are able to deliver surgical oncology in a manner that meets sustainable development goals by improving health, financial solvency, and equity. These platforms compare favorably with policies that holistically address surgical delivery and should be considered as countries strengthen health systems.

Health improvement and financial ruin are often inexorably linked. Nearly 30% of the global burden of disease is surgical [1], and over 30 million annual cases of financial ruin are attributable to accessing surgery [2]. In resource-poor countries, where 70% of all healthcare spending is out-of-pocket [3], catastrophic expenditure for medical care is extremely common [4-6]. In the United States, even those with health insurance face financial catastrophe: nearly two-thirds of bankruptcy is medical, and fully 75% of medically bankrupt individuals were insured at the time of their catastrophic medical bill [7]. Financial ruin is most pronounced among the global poor, among patients with life-threatening conditions, and, increasingly, among the elderly [2, 8-10]. As a result, although the World Health Organization [11], the United Nations [12], and the World Bank [13] have all called for financial risk protection in healthcare, medical impoverishment persists, sometimes forcing individuals into a choice between physical health and financial health. Some choose the former and are willing to incur financial ruin to get care: they sell their assets, borrow, decrease consumption, or, catastrophically, face impoverishment in the pursuit of health [4-6, 14-28]. Others respond to a risk of poverty by not complying with physician recommendations, by seeking alternate providers, or by forgoing care altogether [29-34]. In patients with serious conditions, these choices can be lethal [32, 35]. In the US, national health policy has consistently focused on decreasing out-of-pocket medical costs as a mechanism for health improvement—and not always successfully: two years after the initiation of the Oregon Medicaid expansion, for example, health outcomes had not changed dramatically [36]. Globally, policies to improve access to surgical care either mirror this demand-side focus on out-of-pocket cost reduction or address the supply-side dearth of surgical providers through policies such as task shifting [37-39].

The goal of this dissertation, then, is to examine the effects of these policies and platforms for global surgical delivery on health, on impoverishment, and on inequity, and to determine how individuals value tradeoffs among these outcomes. Chapter 1 investigates the role of government policies for increasing surgical access in public hospitals. This extended cost-effectiveness analysis utilizes publicly available data from Ethiopia to evaluate the health, financial, and equity impacts of nine essential surgical procedures on rural patients. Five policies addressing supply- and demand-side barriers to surgical access are examined: 1) universal public financing (UPF), 2) task shifting (TS), 3) UPF with the addition of vouchers (V) to address the nonmedical costs of care, 4) UPF + TS, and 5) UPF + TS + V. I find that, while all policies are likely to improve health, a tradeoff exists: TS averts deaths most dramatically, but does so at the cost of a large increase in financial catastrophe. UPF is more financially risk protective, but has a much smaller impact on health. Only policies that include vouchers for the non-medical costs of accessing care are found to provide an equitable distribution of benefits; the remaining policies continue to impoverish the poor. Chapter 2 compares surgical delivery by charitable organizations with the governmental policies examined in Chapter 1. Using an agent-based model of cancer care in Uganda, the three common charitable platforms for surgical delivery—two-week “mission trips”, mobile surgical units, and free-standing specialty hospitals—are evaluated against combinations of UPF, TS, and V. In addition to health and catastrophic expenditure, two novel metrics are included to 1) incorporate the familial financial impact of a lack of access and 2) formalize the equitable distribution of benefits into a concentration index. I find that mobile surgical delivery platforms by non-governmental organizations can provide health and financial benefits equitably and efficiently and that they perform well when compared to health-system-strengthening policies. Other charitable platforms are equitable but are not efficient when compared with government policies. The results of this analysis also confirm the finding from Chapter 1 that equitable delivery platforms must address the non-medical costs associated with getting to care. Chapter 3 tests the hypothesis that, in the setting of lethal disease, individuals value cure at all costs. A discrete choice experiment is undertaken in a nationally representative US sample of 2359 individuals. Respondents are asked to choose between two hypothetical treatments for a lethal disease, differing only in their chance of cure and their risk of bankruptcy. I find that the resulting indifference curve is multiplicative, and that Americans are less willing to shoulder high risks of bankruptcy to increase their probability of cure than has been previously assumed. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses do not alter this relationship, although, in some groups, the difference in preference between bankruptcy protection and cure is not statistically significant. In no subgroup, however, do I find evidence a significant preference for cure at any cost in the American population.

Background: The non-profit and volunteer sector has made notable contributions to delivering surgical services in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). As an estimated 55 % of surgical care delivered in some LMICs is via charitable organizations; the financial contributions of this sector provides valuable insight into understanding financing priorities in global surgery. Methods: Databases of registered charitable organizations in five high-income nations (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were searched to identify organizations committed exclusively to surgery in LMICs and their financial data. For each organization, we categorized the surgical specialty and calculated revenues and expenditures. All foreign currency was converted to U.S. dollars based on historical yearly average conversion rates. All dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 U.S. dollars. Results: One hundred sixty organizations representing 15 specialties were identified. Adjusting for inflation, in 2014 U.S. dollars (US$), total aggregated revenue over the years 2008–2013 was $3·4 billion and total aggregated expenses were $3·1 billion. Twenty-eight ophthalmology organizations accounted for 45 % of revenue and 49 % of expenses. Fifteen cleft lip/palate organizations totaled 26 % of both revenue and expenses. The remaining 117 organizations, representing a variety of specialties, accounted for 29 % of revenue and 25 % of expenses. In comparison, from 2008 to 2013, charitable organizations provided nearly $27 billion for global health, meaning an estimated 11.5 % went towards surgery. Conclusion: Charitable organizations that exclusively provide surgery in LMICs primarily focus on elective surgeries, which cover many subspecialties, and often fill deep gaps in care. The largest funding flows are directed at ophthalmology, followed by cleft lip and palate surgery. Despite the number of contributing organizations, there is a clear need for improvement and increased transparency in tracking of funds to global surgery via charitable organizations.

Over two-thirds of the world’s population lack access to surgical care. Non-governmental organisation’s providing free surgeries may overcome financial barriers, but other barriers to care still exist. This analysis paper discusses two different case-finding strategies in Madagascar that aimed to increase the proportion of poor patients, women and those for whom multiple barriers to care exist. From October 2014 to June 2015, we used a centralised selection strategy, aiming to find 70% of patients from the port city, Toamasina, and 30% from the national capital and two remote cities. From August 2015 to June 2016, a decentralised strategy was used, aiming to find 30% of patients from Toamasina and 70% from 11 remote locations, including the capital. Demographic information and self-reported barriers to care were collected. Wealth quintile was calculated for each patient using a combination of participant responses to asset-related and demographic questions, and publicly available data. A total of 2971 patients were assessed. The change from centralised to decentralised selection resulted in significantly poorer patients undergoing surgery. All reported barriers to prior care, except for lack of transportation, were significantly more likely to be identified in the decentralised group. Patients who identified multiple barriers to prior surgical care were less likely to be from the richest quintile (p=0.037) and more likely to be in the decentralised group (p=0.046). Our country-specific analysis shows that decentralised patient selection strategies may be used to overcome barriers to care and allow patients in greatest need to access surgical care.

Background: Five billion people lack access to safe, affordable, and timely surgical and anesthesia care. Significant challenges remain in the provision of surgical care in low-resource settings. Uganda is no exception. Methods: From September to November 2016, we conducted a mixed-methods countrywide surgical capacity assessment at 17 randomly selected public hospitals in Uganda. Researchers conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders to understand factors related to the provision of surgical care. The framework approach was used for thematic and explanatory data analysis. Results: The Ugandan public health care sector continues to face significant challenges in the provision of safe, timely, and affordable surgical care. These challenges can be broadly grouped into preparedness and policy, service delivery, and the financial burden of surgical care. Hospital staff reported challenges including: (1) significant delays in accessing surgical care, compounded by a malfunctioning referral system; (2) critical workforce shortages; (3) operative capacity that is limited by inadequate infrastructure and overwhelmed by emergency and obstetric volume; (4) supply chain difficulties pertaining to provision of essential medications, equipment, supplies, and blood; (5) significant, variable, and sometimes catastrophic expenditures for surgical patients and their families; and (6) a lack of surgery-specific policies and priorities. Despite these challenges, innovative strategies are being used in the public to provide surgical care to those most in need. Conclusion: Barriers to the provision of surgical care are cross-cutting and involve constraints in infrastructure, service delivery, workforce, and financing. Understanding current strengths and shortfalls of Uganda’s surgical system is a critical first step in developing effective, targeted policy and programming that will build and strengthen its surgical capacity.