Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"'We do not need care!' is a rallying cry for disability movements. It is informed by a recognition that a lack of choice over simple care decisions--like what to eat or wear--is a subtle yet pervasive form of violence endured by many disabled people. Disability Politics and Care examines an independent living program to explore what happens when people with disabilities take control of their own care arrangements. Christine Kelly documents responses by a wide range of stakeholders of this program and reflects on some of its broader social and political implications.\"-- Provided by publisher.

This paper aims to identify new sources of revenue for the additional allocation of resources to meet the population's health needs fixed in the federal budget expenses, in the context of the Unified Health System (SUS) underfunding process and the negative effects of Constitutional Amendment 95/2016 for this process - verified decrease in the proportion of federal net current revenue destined to SUS. From this perspective, it is necessary to address the problem of underfunding by linking the search for additional resources with new sources of funding with actions and public health services that will be improved, expanded and created, of which criteria are: regarding sources, exclusivity for SUS, non regressive taxing and review of revenue waiver; and, regarding uses, prioritization of primary care as reference of the health care network and appreciation of civil servants in the health area. The result calculated for the sources ranged from R$ 92 billion to R$ 100 billion, higher than the R$ 30.5 billion calculated for uses under the described terms. A documentary research was conducted to collect data from secondary sources, especially in the reports sent to the National Health Council by the Ministry of Health.

Background Little is known about who the main public and philanthropic funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide what gets funded. This study aims to identify the 10 largest public and philanthropic health research funding organizations in the world, to report on what they fund, and on how they distribute their funds. Methods The world’s key health research funding organizations were identified through a search strategy aimed at identifying different types of funding organizations. Organizations were ranked by their reported total annual health research expenditures. For the 10 largest funding organizations, data were collected on (1) funding amounts allocated towards 20 health areas, and (2) schemes employed for distributing funding (intramural/extramural, project/‘people’/organizational and targeted/untargeted funding). Data collection consisted of a review of reports and websites and interviews with representatives of funding organizations. Data collection was challenging; data were often not reported or reported using different classification systems. Results Overall, 55 key health research funding organizations were identified. The 10 largest funding organizations together funded research for $37.1 billion, constituting 40% of all public and philanthropic health research spending globally. The largest funder was the United States National Institutes of Health ($26.1 billion), followed by the European Commission ($3.7 billion), and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council ($1.3 billion). The largest philanthropic funder was the Wellcome Trust ($909.1 million), the largest funder of health research through official development assistance was USAID ($186.4 million), and the largest multilateral funder was the World Health Organization ($135.0 million). Funding distribution mechanisms and funding patterns varied substantially between the 10 largest funders. Conclusions There is a need for increased transparency about who the main funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide on what gets funded, and for improving the evidence base for various funding models. Data on organizations’ funding patterns and funding distribution mechanisms are often not available, and when they are, they are reported using different classification systems. To start increasing transparency in health research funding, we have established www.healthresearchfunders.org that lists health research funding organizations worldwide and their health research expenditures.

Background Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes. Methods Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed. Results We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included. Conclusions Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.

A reflection of the effectiveness of national health funding reforms to improve system efficiency and improve patient outcomes. Despite the complexities, policy levers exist that can promote value. However, a pressing question remains will those levers be used when activity is required to balance the budgets of our economies’ largest employers.

Objective. To analyse Medicare expenditure by State/Territory, remoteness, and Indigenous demography to assess funding equality in meeting the health needs of remote Indigenous populations in the Northern Territory. Methods. Analytic descriptions of Medicare online reports on services and benefits by key demographic variables linked with Australian Bureau of Statistics data on remoteness and Indigenous population proportion. The Northern Territory Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations were compared with the Australian average between the 2010/2011 and 2019/2020 fiscal years in terms of standardised rates of Medicare services and benefits. These were further analysed using ordinary least squares, simultaneous equations and multilevel models. Results. In per capita terms, the Northern Territory receives around 30% less Medicare funds than the national average, even when additional Commonwealth funding for Aboriginal medical services is included. This funding shortfall amounts to approximately AU $80 million annually across both the Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The multilevel models indicate that providing healthcare for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person in a remote area involves a Medicare shortfall of AU$ 531AU$1041 less Medicare Benefits Schedule benefits per annum compared with a non-Indigenous person in an urban area. Indigenous population proportion, together with remoteness, explained 51% of the funding variation. An age-sex based capitation funding model would correct about 87% of the Northern Territory primary care funding inequality. Conclusions. The current Medicare funding scheme systematically disadvantages the Northern Territory. A needs-based funding model is required that does not penalise the Northern Territory population based on the remote primary health care service model.

Setting This paper describes an action research project with the Centre universitaire intégré de santé et de services sociaux - Capitale Nationale (CIUSSS-CN) who identified a need to assess vulnerability in their territories in order to ensure equitable distribution of the Integrated Perinatal and Early Childhood Services (SIPPE) program funds. The objective was to design and validate a multicriteria model to provide a more accurate portrait of vulnerability based on recent social realities. Intervention Our multidisciplinary research team of 7 members included experts in analytics, decision aiding, and community and public health. In collaboration with 6 CIUSSS-CN professionals, we co-constructed, during 9 workshops, a multicriteria model to aggregate the multiple dimensions of vulnerability. We used a value-focused thinking approach and applied the method MACBETH assisted by a geographic information system. Outcomes Criteria, scales, and weights were validated and led to a vulnerability score for each CIUSSS-CN territory. This score provides a more accurate portrait of territorial disparities based on data and the participants’ experience. The model was implemented in a dynamic user-friendly tool and serves to support decision-makers in the resource allocation process. Knowledge transfer was conducted during and after the process. Implications This multidisciplinary research has served to anchor public health funding in local realities, with an emphasis on equity and stakeholder engagement. Our mixed-method approach integrating qualitative and quantitative data is adaptable to other contexts. Our results can enhance intervention effectiveness and allow for a better response to the needs of the population targeted by the SIPPE program.

Objective. Examine the distribution of funding for suicide prevention in Australia from 2021-22 to 2026-27. Methods. Government websites were reviewed to locate budget documents related to suicide prevention funding. Information was extracted on the program/service to be funded, and the funder entity, duration, and year allocation. Extracted data was reviewed to identify commonly targeted sub-populations. Results. The majority of suicide prevention-related funding was allocated to aftercare for persons who have attempted suicide, consistent with the effectiveness of these services, followed by programs targeting the general population. Little funding was allocated to other specific sub-populations, such as young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The amount of funding allocated to suicide prevention varied across jurisdictions, which is only partially explained by suicide rates. Conclusions. There is a need for greater investment in care for specific sub-populations who are at higher risk of suicide. This study provides a baseline for comparing future investments in suicide prevention in Australia.

Project Synergy is a digital mental health tool for assessment, referral and follow-up of people with mental health problems. The Australian federal government Department of Health entered an AUD33 million formal funding arrangement with InnoWell, a proprietary company vehicle (primarily the consultancy firm PwC and University of Sydney) to continue development of Project Synergy. This followed an initial federal National Health and Medical Research Council grant of AUD5.5 million over the previous 3 years. However, based on the assessment of peer-reviewed research data, the Project Synergy/InnoWell platform does not seem to have demonstrated clinical outcomes of healthcare value to date.