AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded.
RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals.
METHODS: The survey questionnaire, comprising of 15 closed-ended and five open-ended questions, was developed by three neurologists with expertise in MS and routine MS patient management, or had training in neuroimmunology. Questionnaire development was guided by the recent Atlas of MS and in alignment with the Access to Treatment framework, focusing on MS diagnosis and treatment issues in SEA. Fifteen neurologists experienced in managing MS across the region were identified as key informants for this study.
RESULTS: All fifteen neurologists participated in the survey via email and videoconferencing between January 2020 and February 2023, which included the following countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. All had at least five years of experience in managing MS patients and six had previously completed a neuroimmunology fellowship programme. SEA countries showed disparities in healthcare financing, availability of neurologists, MS treatments, and investigative tools. Access to MS disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) is hindered by high cost, lack of MS specialists, and weak advocacy efforts. On-label DMTs are not listed as essential medicines regionally except for interferon beta1a and teriflunomide in Malaysia. On-label monoclonals are available only in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Generic on-label DMTs are unavailable due to lack of distributorship and expertise in using them. Off-label DMTs (azathioprine, methotrexate, and rituximab) predominate in most SEA countries. Other challenges include limited access to investigations, education, and knowledge about DMTs among general neurologists, and absence of registries and MS societies. Patient champions, communities, and MS organisations have limited influence on local governments and pharmaceutical companies. Despite its increasing prevalence, there is a lack of concerted priority setting due to MS being perceived as a rare, non-communicable disease.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the distinct dynamics, challenges, and research gaps within this region, and provides suggestions to improve MS diagnosis, education, and medicine access.