Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2025 Aug 21;22(8):e1004488. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004488

The potential impact of declining development assistance for health on population health in Malawi: A modelling study

Margherita Molaro 1,*, Paul Revill 2, Martin Chalkley 2, Sakshi Mohan 2, Tara D Mangal 1,2, Tim Colbourn 3, Joseph H Collins 3, Matthew M Graham 4, William Graham 4, Eva Janoušková 3, Gerald Manthalu 5, Emmanuel Mnjowe 6, Watipaso Mulwafu 6, Rachel E Murray-Watson 1, Pakwanja D Twea 5, Andrew N Phillips 3, Bingling She 1, Asif U Tamuri 4, Dominic Nkhoma 6, Joseph Mfutso-Bengo 6, Timothy B Hallett 1
Editor: Peter MacPherson7
PMCID: PMC12370021  PMID: 40839553

Abstract

Background

Development assistance for health (DAH) to Malawi will likely decrease as a fraction of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the next few decades. Given the country’s significant reliance on DAH for the delivery of its healthcare services, estimating the impact that this could have on health projections for the country is particularly urgent.

Methods and findings

We use the Malawi-specific, individual-based “all diseases—whole health-system” Thanzi La Onse model to estimate the impact that declining DAH could have on health system capacities, proxied by the availability of human resources for health, and consequently on population health outcomes, in the period 2019–2040. We estimate that the range of DAH forecasts considered could result in a 7.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) [5.3, 8.3]) to 15.8% (95% CI [14.5,16.7]) increase in disability-adjusted life years compared to a scenario where health spending as a percentage of GDP remains unchanged. This could cause a reversal of gains achieved to date in many areas of health. The burden due to non-communicable diseases, on the other hand, is found to increase irrespective of yearly growth in health expenditure, assuming current reach, and scope of interventions. Finally, we find that greater health expenditure will improve population health outcomes, but at a diminishing rate. The main limitations of this study include the fact that it only considered gradual changes in health expenditure, and did not account for more severe economic shocks or sharp declines in DAH. It also relied on key assumptions about how other factors affecting health beyond healthcare worker numbers —such as consumable availability, range of services available, treatment innovation, and socio-economic and behavioural factors—might evolve.

Conclusions

This analysis reveals the potential risk to population health in Malawi should current forecasts of declining health expenditure as a share of GDP materialise, and underscores the need for both domestic and international authorities to act in response to this anticipated trend.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important source of funding for public healthcare services in Malawi.

  • Its contribution is expected to decline in the near future, with potential repercussions on the ability of the public healthcare system to dispense services.

  • The extent of the impact this could have on population health outcomes is currently poorly understood.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • We considered different possible scenarios of health expenditure between 2019 and 2040, and estimated how they would affect the number of available healthcare workers (HCWs) over this period.

  • We used the Thanzi La Onse mathematical model to simulate how each scenario of HCW availability would impact the health burden from major causes of ill health, accounting for disease dynamics and health services utilisation.

  • We found that the range of possible DAH declines considered would result in an increase in the population health burden—quantified by disability adjusted life years—of 7%–15.8%, compared to the case where current health expenditure trends are sustained.

  • We also found that it could lead to a reversal of important gains achieved to date in key areas of health.

What do these findings mean?

  • This study helps both domestic and international funders understand how different funding choices can affect future health outcomes in the country.

  • The main limitations of this study include the fact that it only considered gradual changes in health expenditure, and did not account for the possibility of economic shocks or sharp declines in DAH.

  • It also had to make assumptions about how factors that affect people’s health beyond the number of HCWs available—like the availability of medical supplies, types of services offered, new treatments, and changes in living conditions or behaviour—might change over time.

Introduction

Malawi has made remarkable progress in health in the last few decades, achieving an 18-year increase in life expectancy at birth in the country between 2000 and 2021 [1]. Many of these gains were achieved with the significant support of international donors, who contributed up to ~55% of total health expenditures in the country in 2018/2019 [2]. However, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) is forecasting a reduction in the contribution of development assistance for health (DAH) as a fraction of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the next few decades, with the rising contribution of government expenditure on health not expected to increase fast enough to compensate for the shortfall [3].

This would happen at a crucial time for Malawi, which has only recently made substantial, yet potentially reversible, gains in major infectious disease pandemics such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), tuberculosis (TB), and malaria. In addition, a rise in the contribution of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to the country’s health burden means the healthcare system is facing a double burden of infectious diseases and NCDs [4,5].

In this analysis, we translate a number of hypothetical long-term health expenditure scenarios for Malawi—which may or may not realise depending on actions taken by both international and national funders and stakeholders—into equivalent levels of human resources for health (HRH) capacity. We then make use of the Malawi-specific “all diseases—whole health—system” Thanzi La Onse (www.tlomodel.org, [6]) model to estimate the health burden, quantified in disability adjusted life years (DALYs), between 2019 and 2040 under different levels of annual growth rates in health expenditure over the same period, including those forecasted by the IHME. These health burden estimates are further disaggregated by causes of illness, to understand the divergent trajectory of these causes under different levels of annual growth rates in health expenditure.

Method

Overview

The individual-based model Thanzi La Onse (TLO, www.tlomodel.org, [6]) simulates the evolution of the health burden in Malawi while capturing: its demographic growth; the evolving incidence of all major risk factors, infectious diseases, NCDs, and comorbidities; the health-seeking and treatment-adherence behaviour of those at risk of or affected by a medical condition requiring care; the range of potential interventions available to both prevent and treat those medical conditions, as well as the effectiveness of these interventions; the accuracy of referral and diagnostics; and the extent to which health services are able to meet the demand for care in all its requirements, including timely access to relevant HRH and consumables. All these factors are modelled explicitly and self-consistently, and are extensively calibrated to available data in the period 2015–2019 (see [6] for details).

The medical conditions explicitly modelled in this analysis, in particular, include major infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS [7,8], TB [8], and malaria [8]; NCDs, such as cancers (including bladder, breast, oesophageal, prostate, and the combined effect of all others), cardio-metabolic disorders (including Diabetes Type 2, Hypertension, Stroke, Ischaemic Heart Disease, Myocardial Infarction), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), depression, diarrhoea, epilepsy; road traffic injuries (RTIs) [9]; and the most prevalent conditions related to maternal and newborn health [10] as well as major causes of ill health among children under five years of age, including acute lower respiratory infections [11], measles, childhood diarrhoea, and stunting. A comprehensive, versioned documentation of all modelling assumptions for each of these conditions, including assumed risk factors and a review of all data sources and references adopted in each case, is available in the publicly-accessible repository of the model version used in this analysis, under docs/write-ups. This includes documentation (under the “Lifestyle” module) detailing how the model incorporates various social determinants of health, such as education level, wealth, marital status, and urban or rural residency. Finally, the incidence of all causes of ill health not directly modelled through an individual-based approach, accounting for approximately 19% of deaths and 28% of DALYs documented in Malawi between 2015 and 2019, is captured using Global Burden of Disease (GBD) projections (see [6] for details). More details on the model can be found in [6].

We use this model to simulate the health burden that would be incurred under different scenarios of health expenditure in Malawi between 2019 and 2040 (inclusive). Each expenditure scenario is assumed to result in an expansion of HRH in the country from capabilities initially calibrated to 2018, as discussed in detail in the next section. Because the ability of the healthcare system to meet the demand for care in the model is constrained by the HRH available, this allows us to estimate the return in health from each expenditure scenario.

Indeed, given realistic representations of (i) the patient-facing time available from each medical cadre at each simulated facility, and (ii) the time required from different medical cadres by each type of appointment, both adjusted to present-day productivity levels and available resources, the TLO model ensures that, on each day, care can only be dispensed until patient-facing time has been exhausted (see S1 Text). Failure to receive care results in an increased probability of adverse health outcomes for the individual and, in the case of infectious diseases, of further infection spread among the population, accurately capturing repercussions of HRH constraints on the overall health burden.

In this analysis, only the relationship between expenditure in HRH and health outcome is directly captured (see the Discussion section), while consumable availability is assumed to be perfect. We perform a sensitivity analysis on the consumable availability assumption in S2 Text. Finally, we note that the assumed efficacy of specific interventions is informed by data and inferred through the calibration process. The effectiveness of interventions in reality can, of course, evolve over time, influenced by factors such as the emergence of drug resistance to some infectious pathogens, advancements in treatment, or changes in policy. In this analysis, however, we do not capture the uncertainty around the future effectiveness of the treatments considered, and instead assume this to be constant with time.

Health expenditure scenarios

We assume that the expansion of HRH capabilities in the country matches the combined growth of GDP and fraction of GDP allocated to healthcare expenditures (fHE) through combined government and DAH efforts. This assumption is reviewed in detail in the Discussion section.

For simplicity and to facilitate interpretability, we assume that annual fractional changes in GDP and fHE, referred to as gGDP and gfHE, respectively, are constant for the entire simulated period, although fluctuations are expected in practice. HRH capabilities available in any year i can therefore be expressed relative to those in the previous year as:

HRHiHRHi1= (1 + gGDP) × (1 + gfHE) (1)

where therefore [(1 + gGDP) × (1 + gfHE) − 1] constitutes the yearly growth of the overall health expenditure, and consequently an equal growth in expenditure on HRH and patient-facing time available, and assume expansion of capabilities starts in the year i = 2019 (see S1 Text for details). The expansion of resources due to different health expenditure scenarios can therefore be thought of as an increase in the total amount of medical officers’ patient-facing time available at each facility, resulting in the healthcare system being able to dispense a higher number of services. Initial HRH capabilities assumed in 2018 are extensively calibrated to available data, disaggregated by medical cadre, facility level, and district [12]. In each scenario, we then assume that capabilities in each category are expanded by the same yearly percentage growth, such that the initial relative distribution of healthcare workers (HCWs) is maintained throughout the expansion period. All these assumptions are reviewed in the Discussion section.

In this analysis, the HRH expansion scenarios considered are determined by different expectations around how the GDP and fHE will grow with time. The range of scenarios considered are summarised and motivated in Table 1. Our worst-case scenario is one where capabilities are not expanded at all from those in 2018 (“No growth” scenario). In all other cases, we assume a fixed GDP growth per year of gGDP = 4.2%, which corresponds to the average annual percentage growth of GDP in Malawi (expressed in constant 2015 US$) between 1960 and 2020 according to World Bank data. Two of the scenarios considered (“<<GDP growth” and “<GDP growth”) specifically approximate the lower and upper bounds in the 95% uncertainty interval (UI) reported in the IHME forecasts, as discussed in S3 Text.

Table 1. Capabilities expansion scenarios considered. gGDP and gfHE refer to the growth rate of annual GDP (in constant 2015 US$) and growth rate of fraction of GDP allocated to health (fHE) assumed, leading to a yearly expenditure growth per scenario of [(1 + gGDP) × (1 + gfHE) − 1]. The normalised health expenditure (NHE) associated with each scenario (defined in Eq. 2) is also included. Scenarios capturing the lower and upper bounds in the 95% UI in the forecasts by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) are also included, and discussed in more detail in S3 Text.

Label gGDP
(%)
gfHE
(%)
Yearly
expenditure growth (%)
Normalised
Health Expenditure (NHE)
Description
No growth 0 0 0 22.00 No expansion of capabilities
<<GDP growth 4.2 −3.0 1.1 24.93 IHME forecast (lower-bound)
<GDP growth 4.2 −1.5 2.6 30.08 IHME forecast (upper-bound)
GDP growth 4.2 0 4.2 36.53 Expansion follows GDP growth, with fHE fixed at the implicit 2018 value. Captures the current level of healthcare expenditure.
>GDP growth 4.2 +1.5 5.8 44.60 Growth above GDP
>>GDP growth 4.2 +3.0 7.3 54.75 Growth significantly above GDP

Each scenario s is characterised by a different normalised health expenditure (NHE) incurred over the relevant period. We define this in dimensionless units relative to HRH expenses in 2018 as:

NHEs=1HRH2018i=20192040HRHsi (2)

Finally, the health outcome of each health expenditure scenario is quantified by DALYs assuming a life-expectancy [13] of 70 years, and adopting disability adjustment factors from [14]. The initial representative population size assumed in 2010 is of 100,000 individuals, while results reported are scaled to the true population size in Malawi in 2010 of 14.5 million individuals. Each scenario was simulated 10 independent times, each with independent random draws to capture stochastic uncertainty; this specification was found to be sufficient to give stable estimates of the mean and variance of the health burden obtained under each cause included in the simulation over independent realisations. For each of the scenarios, we plot the mean and the 95% interval across the 10 model realisation. The 95% interval is a non-parametric confidence interval (CI), obtained by calculating the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles in the simulated outcomes assuming a linear interpolation in the distribution.

Ethics statement

The Thanzi La Onse project received ethical approval from the College of Medicine Malawi Research Ethics Committee (COMREC, P.10/19/2820) in Malawi. Only publicly available anonymised secondary data is used in the Thanzi La Onse model; therefore, individual informed consent was not required.

Results

How does health scale with expenditure on human resources for health?

In Fig 1a we show the evolution of yearly DALYs incurred under different hypothetical scenarios of health expenditure, including all causes listed in the Methods section and the correction from GBD projections from all remaining causes not explicitly included, as discussed in the same section. A steady rise in yearly DALYs incurred is observed in the long-term for all scenarios considered, suggesting that an expenditure above the largest yearly expenditure growth considered in this analysis (“>>GDP growth”) would be required to stabilise the long-term health burden in the country. This is partly driven by population growth, as illustrated by the equivalent evolution of the life expectancy in Fig 1b: the lowest level of expenditure considered (“No growth” scenario) is indeed still able to stabilise the average life expectancy over the whole period, however, failing to achieve any improvements in individual outcomes.

Fig 1. Evolution of health burden and life expectancy under different expenditure scenarios.

Fig 1

(a) Total yearly DALYs (averaged over two-year periods) incurred under different expenditure scenarios. (b): Life expectancy (averaged over two-year periods) achieved under different expenditure scenarios. In both plots, solid lines represent mean values, while shaded areas indicate the 95% CIs defined in the Methods section.

In Fig 2a, on the other hand, we show the total DALYs incurred between 2019 and 2040 as a function of the yearly health expenditure growth, as well as the normalised total health expenditure (NHE, defined in Eq. 2) characterising each expenditure scenario. In Fig 2b, on the other hand, we show the percentage of total DALYs averted compared to the “GDP growth” scenario, which captures the current level of health expenditure.

Fig 2. Scaling of overall health burden with yearly expenditure growth.

Fig 2

(a) Total DALYs incurred in the period 2019–2040 (inclusive) as a function of the yearly expenditure growth, as well as the normalised total expenditure (NHE) over that period under each scenario (top x-axis), as defined in Eq. 2. The best-fit parameters for the function shown are summarised in the table inside the plot, while the linear best-fits to the first three levels of yearly expenditure growth considered are only included for visual guidance. (b) Percentage DALYs averted in the same period compared to the “GDP growth” scenario, where this captures the current level of health expenditure as a fraction of GDP. The blue shaded area shows the 95% UI in the IHME forecast. In both plots, points represent mean values, while error bars indicate the 95% CIs defined in the Methods section.

While the reduction in health burden initially achieved is around ~10 million DALYs for every percentage point increase in expenditure growth, this trend becomes sublinear as the overall expenditure increases above ~4%, eventually flattening around 8%–9%. In particular, a reduction in fHE with rates in the 95% UI of the IHME forecast (shown by the blue shaded area in the figure) would result in an excess of between 7.0% (95% CI [5.3, 8.3]) and 15.8% (95% CI [14.5,16.7]) increase in total DALYs incurred compared to a fixed fHE (i.e., current level of health expenditure) scenario (“GDP growth” scenario)

How are key areas of health affected?

In Fig 3, we show how three important areas of health are affected by different expenditure strategies, namely:

Fig 3. Impact on different areas of health.

Fig 3

Average yearly DALYs incurred between 2019 and 2040, grouped into three meaningful categories: HTM, including HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria (a); RMNCH, including lower respiratory infections, childhood diarrhoea, maternal and neonatal disorders, and measles (b); and NCDs, including COPD, cancers, depression/self-harm, diabetes, epilepsy, heart and kidney disease, and stroke, alongside RTIs (c). In the case of HTM, DALYs in this area are additionally shown broken down by individual causes. In all plots, points represent mean values, while error bars indicate the 95% CI defined in the Methods section. Horizontal lines indicate the yearly DALYs burden for each cause in 2018. This means that any scenario above the respective 2,018 level incurred, on average, a worsening of the health burden due to that cause over the 2019–2040 period, whereas any scenario below the respective 2,018 level incurred an improvement. Finally, the blue shaded area shows the 95% UI in the IHME forecast. A breakdown of the time evolution of the burden due to all of these causes of ill health individually is included in S4 Text.

  • i) major infectious diseases primarily supported via vertical programmes, namely HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria (HTM);

  • ii) Reproductive, Maternal, Neonatal, and Child Health (RMNCH), including lower respiratory infections, childhood diarrhoea, maternal disorders, measles, and neonatal disorders; and

  • iii) NCDs, including COPD, cancers, depression/self-harm, diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, kidney disease, and stroke, alongside RTIs.

Each panel shows the average yearly DALYs lost under each area of health between 2019 and 2040 as a function of the yearly expenditure growth associated with that scenario, while the horizontal lines show the yearly DALYs incurred due to that cause in 2018, the year before scenarios start diverging. This means that if the DALYs incurred under a scenario fall below the respective horizontal line, an average decline in the health burden from that cause was achieved over the period for that scenario. On the other hand, if the DALYs incurred lie above the horizontal lines, the expenditure scenario led to an average increase in the health burden due to that cause between 2019 and 2040. A breakdown of the time evolution of the individual burden from these health conditions is additionally included in S4 Text.

A downward trend in DALYs incurred due to HIV/AIDS appears to be achievable by all expenditure scenarios, despite significant population growth over this period, suggesting that the important gains made in this area in previous years can be sustained by existing HRH capabilities—although the increase in average yearly DALYs with diminishing yearly expenditure growth suggests that such gains may still be reversed if existing HRH capabilities were to be reduced. However, this finding is dependent on the assumed availability of relevant medical consumables and the relatively short time-scale being examined; the latter may indeed be too brief for a resurgence in HIV incidence to significantly increase the demand for ART and the overall HIV/AIDS health burden, as discussed in detail in the Discussion section. The rise in malaria and TB burden would also appear to be mostly contained, but requiring a minimum of “GDP-growth” level expenditure (therefore above IHME projections) to be at least stabilised.

On the other hand, DALYs due to RMNCH would, under IHME projections, significantly rise compared to their 2,018 level over the period considered, mainly driven by the population growth over this period. An increase in HRH availability in line with ‘GDP growth” and above appears to be effective at containing this rise and leading, for expenditures above “GDP growth”, to a downward trend in DALYs incurred in this area of health despite an increase in population size.

Finally, and unlike for other areas of health, the rising health burden due to NCDs appears to be largely unaffected by the availability—and therefore expansion—of HRH capabilities. This is due to the complex challenges currently preventing effective NCD programme delivery in the country [1517]. Notice that this unconstrained rise in NCDs is therefore what drives the long-term rise in the overall health burden even in the “>>GDP growth” expenditure scenario, which can be observed in Fig 1.

Discussion

We have estimated the trends in long-term health-burden that can be expected in Malawi under different scenarios of healthcare expenditure in the period 2019–2040, approximated by an equivalent HRH capabilities expansion. We found that the decline in total DALYs incurred between 2019 and 2040 is initially close to ~10 million DALYs per percentage point increase in yearly expenditure growth, but exhibits diminishing returns above 4%. Reasons for these diminishing returns are independent of assumptions around consumable availability (see S2 Text) and likely linked to: the assumed fixed range of preventive, screening, and treatment services offered by the healthcare system over the entire period, which could instead be expanded to include less cost effective options once the most urgent medical needs in the population have been met; persisting difficulties in health service access by certain sections of the population; imperfect diagnostic and referral accuracy; and the intrinsic (less than perfect) effectiveness of each intervention, which are all factors explicitly captured in the TLO model.

This showed that if the 95% UI in the IHME’s projected decline in the fraction of GDP allocated to healthcare from combined governmental and international aid efforts should realise, the country would incur a percentage increase in total DALYs lost of between 7.0% (95% CI [5.3, 8.3]) and 15.8% (95% CI [14.5, 16.7]) compared to current levels of health expenditure, and that the significant gains made by Malawi in the past in important areas of health such RMNCH, malaria, and TB could be reversed. Sustaining or exceeding current levels of health expenditure, on the other hand, would ensure the burden due to these causes can continue to decrease over time despite population growth. In the case of HIV/AIDS, progress made to date—which includes the country already meeting two of the three targets set out by USAIDS for 2030 [18]—appears to have made the decline in this burden sustainable by current HRH capabilities.

Finally, the significant rise in the health burden due to NCDs was found to be unaffected by the level of expenditure in HRH, suggesting that expanding the reach and scope of preventive, screening, and treatment services offered would play a key role in ensuring that health investments can effectively translate into a reduction of the health burden due to these causes of ill health in the future [1517].

This modelling approach enables a health system-wide estimation of the potential impact of different hypothetical health system funding scenarios on population health, using a model extensively calibrated to the local context. The Malawian Ministry of Health has been closely engaged from the earliest stages of the TLO model’s development and the conception of this analysis. As a result, this work provides valuable, context-sensitive scientific evidence [19] to support the wider and complex deliberative process of public healthcare policy design [20,21]

The strength of this modelling approach indeed lies in its calibration to Malawi-specific factors—including population properties, healthcare structure, and epidemiological landscape—which ensures a country-tailored and contextually relevant analysis. The generalisability of these findings beyond Malawi, therefore, is unknown. However, by highlighting the potential consequences on health outcomes of reductions in DAH for Malawi, we hope to underscore the urgency of conducting similar analyses in other countries in the region and beyond that also rely heavily on foreign aid, and therefore are similarly vulnerable to its decline.

To our knowledge, no other study has directly linked future healthcare spending implications to population health outcomes in Malawi or other countries; we are therefore unable to conduct a comparative exercise on our results at this time.

This analysis relied on a number of key assumptions. With regards to health expenditure projections, the significant uncertainty surrounding future trends in GDP, DAH, and fHE, especially over extended periods of time, is inevitably reflected by any long-term projections assumed in this analysis. To address this, our analysis therefore deliberately considered a wide range of possible yearly expenditure growth scenarios, and remained agnostic as to which is more likely to be realised in the future, focussing instead on quantifying the population-health consequences in each case. For example, while the range of gfHE values considered included IHME projections, this was deliberately extended to capture a wider range of potential annual changes in fHE.

We further emphasise that in this analysis, it is the assumed annual expenditure growth—which reflects the combined effects of gGDP and gfHE—which determines the HCW capacity expansion. This allows for flexibility in interpreting each scenario under different gGDP and gfHE assumptions, by adjusting one parameter while proportionally rescaling the other. For example, the “<GDP growth” scenario (gGDP = 4.2%, gfHE = −1.5%) could equally represent a scenario where gGDP = 2% and gfHE = 0.62%. And while in designing these scenarios, we assumed that these parameters could vary independently of one another, each scenario could therefore easily be reinterpreted as reflecting any level of correlation between them, which may better reflect how these two parameters evolve in reality.

Finally, we assumed that gGDP and gfHE remain constant throughout the simulated period for each scenario. In doing so, we have chosen to prioritise interpretability over complexity: accounting for fluctuations in gGDP and gfHE over the simulated period would have introduced complex temporal dynamics in the disease burden, influenced by the timing, magnitude, and cumulative effect of prior investment, as well as the intrinsic transmission dynamics of the simulated infectious diseases. Such interactions would have significantly complicated result interpretation and scenario comparison, particularly given the arbitrary nature of the timing and magnitude of any simulated fluctuations. We therefore believe this to be a reasonable assumption at present, and postpone a more detailed analysis of the effect of these fluctuations to a later study.

In assuming that the capabilities expansion considered in this analysis scaled simply with GDP and fHE growth, we implicitly assumed that the fraction of the total health expenditure (GDP × fHE) allocated to HRH (as opposed to new infrastructure, the purchasing of consumables and equipment, administrative costs, etc.) is constant with time, while the real costs of HRH are also assumed to be constant, and that the relative distribution of HCWs across different cadres, facility levels, and districts remains constant as HRH capabilities are expanded. This strategy for resource allocation may be far from optimal. A more targeted expenditure in particular districts/facility levels/types of cadres may indeed result in a higher return in health from the same expenditure. This analysis should therefore be seen as a “lower bound” to the health benefit that could be obtained from the same expenditure.

In addition, we assumed that any expenditure – based on the above-listed assumptions—directly translated into an expansion of available patient-facing time. In this simplified approach, we therefore did not account for (i) possible variations in HCW productivity due to the expansion of existing cadres or other influencing factors, and (ii) the fact that the realisation of such scenarios would require adequate and timely expenditures in training and recruitment of additional HCWs, as well as potentially the expansion of existing infrastructures, facilities, and equipment to accommodate the intake of new personnel. These costs may amount to a higher share of the healthcare budget currently allocated to these areas; fully capturing them while imposing a cap on overall expenditure may therefore limit the amount of HRH capabilities expansion achievable under the same assumed GDP and fHE growth, as would potential wage increases over the simulated 22-year period. Once such additional costs are captured, such considerations could, however, easily be embedded in this analysis by refactoring the assumed growth/total expense incurred under each scenario considered. Accounting for variations in healthcare worker productivity would also be an extremely important addition to this analysis; while this is a focus of future work on the model, more empirical analysis is first required to better understand how productivity of healthcare workers varies as a function of environmental factors (such as overall demand for care and number of healthcare workers available), policy decisions, incentives, quality of management, and improvements in available technologies.

Furthermore, while HRH constitutes one of the most important constraints to healthcare delivery and universal healthcare access [22,23] we did not capture how other constraints—such as consumables, ambulances, and others—would scale with increasing expenditure, nor how factors beyond health system provision which may impact the country’s health outcomes, such as access to improved (or declining) infrastructure, education, and employment, would evolve with time, or themselves be influenced by public healthcare spending. While in this analysis we assumed perfect consumable availability, its main conclusions were, however, found to be unchanged under an assumption of present-day consumable availability (see S2 Text). In addition, all health services were assumed to be competing equally for the same limited resources. In reality, different funding streams may result in a higher share of overall capabilities being reserved for specific programmes, e.g., through vertical funding ([24]). This share, however, would likely evolve over the period considered as a result of a decline in the contribution of DAH.

In this analysis, we were agnostic as to how much of the assumed investment into HRH would be contributed by DAH versus the government of Malawi (GoM). The GoM currently covers the highest proportion of HRH spending (68%) [25]. Health worker salaries and benefits account for 70% of this cost, and are covered at 90% by the GoM. Assuming this present-day allocation of costs, it may be argued that a contraction in international donors support may not affect HRH as significantly as assumed in these scenarios. It is, however, not unreasonable to assume that the GoM may be forced to reallocate some of its HRH funding were international donors to withdraw their support in other areas of health, resulting in an equivalent contraction. Furthermore, the financial strain placed by a decline in donor support could have a detrimental impact on staffing levels, medical consumable supply, and technical capacity, as experienced in other countries which went through a similar funding transition [26]. Our analysis does not capture these potential effects.

Finally, this analysis did not capture the contribution of prepaid private and out-of-pocket health expenditures to the overall health outcome of the population. The IHME forecasts that the relative contribution of these types of health expenditures to the overall health expenditure in the country will grow over this period from an estimated 17% in 2019 [3]; however, the future trajectory of prepaid private and out-of-pocket health spending is itself likely to be influenced by the level of investment in public healthcare, as changes in public provision may shape demand for private alternatives.

This analysis further assumed perfect consumable availability in all disease areas throughout the entire simulated period. While a more nuanced analysis of consumable availability under varying funding scenarios would be highly valuable, we refrained from including it at this stage due to the complexity of accurately modelling the relationship between financial investment and improvements in consumable availability: indeed, the costs associated with strengthening supply chains, ensuring effective stock management, and minimising shortages, remain at present poorly understood.

A sensitivity analysis on this assumption was conducted by testing a scenario in which consumable availability instead remains fixed at its present-day level [6] without any improvement (see S2 Text). It is, however, important to emphasise that for mostly vertically funded programmes such as HIV/AIDS, current levels of relevant consumable availability in Malawi are already extremely high [7]: in 2018, the year used for present-day consumable calibration, the average availability of adult antiretroviral treatment (ART) and HIV tests across different facility levels was as high as 94% and 88.5% respectively (see [7], Fig 2 therein), an availability generally much greater than that for consumables related to other disease areas [6].

As discussed in the Results section, in this analysis, the health burden due to HIV/AIDS was found to decline under all investment scenarios considered despite population growth over the period considered (2019–2040), both under an assumption of perfect consumable availability, and one of present-level consumable availability (see S2 Text). While promising, we therefore seek to emphasise that this finding of resilience of the HIV/AIDS burden to a lack of investment into the healthcare workforce is highly contingent on a high availability of relevant consumables currently achieved in the country, and as such could be severely compromised by any decline in this availability.

Furthermore, we note that the time frame considered in this analysis (2019–2040) may be too short to capture any negative effects on the metric of choice, DALYs. Any increase in the underlying incidence of the disease as a result of a lack of expansion of HWC may indeed only become detectable as an increase in the health burden on longer timescales. This is due to the fact that a high proportion of HIV-infected individuals in Malawi are already receiving ART and are virally suppressed: in 2022, as many as 93% of people living with HIV in Malawi were aware of their HIV status; among those diagnosed, 97% were receiving ART, and of those on ART, 93% had achieved viral suppression [27]. Once off treatment, individuals who are virally suppressed may remain asymptomatic for years, depending on their health when ART was initiated. However, they would immediately become infectious again; this, together with reduced access to prevention and ART services, would lead to a resurgence in HIV infections, which may, however, only manifest as an increase in DALYS beyond the time period of this study.

Finally, we seek to clearly state that none of the scenarios considered in this analysis reflect a rapid reduction in HIV/AIDS funding, which would lead to an immediate rise in AIDS deaths and HIV incidence [28,29]. First, such defunding would represent a contraction of current resources, i.e., a negative yearly expenditure growth, which is beyond the range considered in our analysis. Second, it would create a chaotic disruption to health system provision —as services are redesigned and staff redeployed—which stands in contrast to the gradual, and optimally-managed changes modelled here.

Lastly, we acknowledge that a number of important assumptions were made with regard to the future incidence of NCDs, which will be shaped by a large number of complex factors [4]. The model explicitly accounts for many of these, such as level of wealth, education, sugar, salt, alcohol intake, and body mass index, and does so by extrapolating current trends on the evolution of the incidence of these factors into the future. (Details on how these factors are accounted for in the modelling of each individual disease can be found in the model’s documentation, as discussed in the Methods section). Of course, significant uncertainty remains around such extrapolations, as well as uptake and effectiveness of treatment. By highlighting how significant the future health-burden from such causes would be should the current trends be maintained, this analysis highlights the urgency of implementing preventive as well as curative strategies to ensure both the incidence and the health-cost from these NCDs can be contained in the future.

In conclusion, this analysis is the first, to our knowledge, to quantify the potential overall consequences of a number of potential health expenditure scenarios in Malawi in the future, described by an equivalent expansion of HRH. It demonstrated the potential risk of reversing gains in several key areas of health in the country if current forecasts on the decline of contribution from development assistance for health were to be realised, and highlighted the need for domestic and international authorities to act in response to this predicted trend. In particular, it found that current levels of expenditure on HRH as a fraction of GDP should be sustained in order to prevent a reversal of gains in many important areas of health, such as RMNCH, TB, and malaria. Furthermore, it found that the rising contribution of NCDs to the national health burden is currently largely unaffected by investments in HRH, suggesting that an expansion to the scope and reach of preventive and treatment programmes relevant to these diseases should be considered, if the rising contribution of these conditions is to be contained.

Supporting information

S1 Text. Modelling HRH constraints.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004488.s001.docx (19.7KB, docx)
S2 Text. Effect of consumable availability.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004488.s002.docx (1.2MB, docx)
S3 Text. IHME forecasts of health expenditure.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004488.s003.docx (607.7KB, docx)
S4 Text. Time evolution of individual causes of ill health.

(DOCX)

pmed.1004488.s004.docx (902.1KB, docx)

Abbreviations

AIDS

acquired immune deficiency syndrome

ART

antiretroviral treatment

CI

confidence interval

COPD

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

DAH

development assistance for health

DALYs

disability adjusted life years

GBD

Global Burden of Disease

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GoM

government of Malawi

HCWs

healthcare workers

HIV

human immunodeficiency virus

HRH

human resources for health

IHME

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

NCDs

non-communicable diseases

NHE

normalised health expenditure

RMNCH

Reproductive, Maternal, Neonatal, and Child Health

RTIs

road traffic injuries

TB

tuberculosis

TLO

Thanzi La Onse

UI

uncertainty interval

Data Availability

The Thanzi La Onse model is open source and available for review and usage at https://github.com/UCL/TLOmodel. In particular, the outputs analysed in this study can be reproduced from model tag "Molaro_et_al_2025_Impact_of_DAH_decline_final" (accessible at https://github.com/UCL/TLOmodel/tags), using the scenario file src/scripts/healthsystem/impact_of_const_capabilities_expansion/scenario_impact_of_capabilities_expansion_scaling.py. The scripts used to generate the plots in the manuscript can be found the same directory, in the file analysis_impact_of_capabilities_expansion_scaling.py. In addition, post-processed output data can be directly obtained from Zenodo at 10.5281/zenodo.15442201.

Funding Statement

This project is funded by The Wellcome Trust (223120/Z/21/Z to TBH) and contributed to the salaries of MM, BS, and TM. MM, BS, TM, and TBH acknowledge funding from the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (reference MR/X020258/1), funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). This UK-funded award is carried out in the frame of the Global Health EDCTP3 Joint Undertaking. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. 2024. [cited 2024 July 29]. Available from: https://data.who.int/countries/454
  • 2.Connolly E, Mohan S, Twea P, Msuku T, Kees A, Sharma L, et al. Revision of Malawi’s health benefits package: a critical analysis of policy formulation and implementation. Value Health Reg Issues. 2024;39:84–94. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2023.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Micah AE, Cogswell IE, Cunningham B, Ezoe S, Harle AC, Maddison ER, et al. Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1317–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gowshall M, Taylor-Robinson SD. The increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases in low-middle income countries: the view from Malawi. Int J Gen Med. 2018;11:255–64. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S157987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.WHO. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hallett TB, Mangal TD, Tamuri AU, Arinaminpathy N, Cambiano V, Chalkley M, et al. Estimates of resource use in the public-sector health-care system and the effect of strengthening health-care services in Malawi during 2015–19: a modelling study (Thanzi La Onse). Lancet Global Health. 2024 Nov. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X24004133. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 7.Mangal TD, Mohan S, Colbourn T, Collins JH, Graham M, Jahn A, et al. Assessing the effect of health system resources on HIV and tuberculosis programmes in Malawi: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2024;12(10):e1638–48. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00259-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mangal TD, Molaro M, Nkhoma D, Colbourn T, Collins JH, Janousˇkova´ E, et al. A decade of progress in HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis initiatives in Malawi. medRxiv. 2024. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/08/2024.10.08.24315077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 9.Manning Smith R, Cambiano V, Colbourn T, Collins JH, Graham M, Jewell B, et al. Estimating the health burden of road traffic injuries in Malawi using an individual-based model. Inj Epidemiol. 2022;9(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40621-022-00386-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Collins J, Allott H, Ng’ambi W, Li Lin I, Giordano M, Graham M, et al. Estimating the impact of maternity service delivery on health in Malawi: An individual-based modelling study. Preprint. 2024. Preprint; not peer-reviewed. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Available from: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3937439/v1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 11.Li Lin I, McCollum ED, Buckley ET, Cambiano V, Collins JH, Graham MM, et al. The impact and cost-effectiveness of pulse oximetry and oxygen on acute lower respiratory infection outcomes in children under-5 in Malawi: a modelling study [SSRN Scholarly Paper]. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2024. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4947417 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.She B, Mangal TD, Prust ML, et al. Health workforce needs in Malawi: analysis of the Thanzi La Onse integrated epidemiological model of care. PREPRINT (Version 1). 2024 July. Available at Research Square: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4770323/v1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 13.Division of Data A, for Impact WHO D. WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease estimates 2000-2019; 2020. Available from: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/gho-documents/global-health-estimates/ghe2019_daly-methods.pdf.
  • 14.Salomon JA, Haagsma JA, Davis A, de Noordhout CM, Polinder S, Havelaar AH. Disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(11):e712-23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lupafya PC, Mwagomba BLM, Hosig K, Maseko LM, Chimbali H. Implementation of policies and strategies for control of noncommunicable diseases in Malawi: challenges and opportunities. Health Educ Behav. 2016;43(1 Suppl):64S-9S. doi: 10.1177/1090198115614313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Price AJ, Crampin AC, Amberbir A, Kayuni-Chihana N, Musicha C, Tafatatha T, et al. Prevalence of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, and cascade of care in sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-sectional, population-based study in rural and urban Malawi. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(3):208–22. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30432-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wroe EB, Kalanga N, Dunbar EL, Nazimera L, Price NF, Shah A, et al. Expanding access to non-communicable disease care in rural Malawi: outcomes from a retrospective cohort in an integrated NCD-HIV model. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e036836. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Payne D, Wadonda-Kabondo N, Wang A, Smith-Sreen J, Kabaghe A, Bello G, et al. Trends in HIV prevalence, incidence, and progress towards the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets in Malawi among individuals aged 15-64 years: population-based HIV impact assessments, 2015-16 and 2020-21. Lancet HIV. 2023;10(9):e597–605. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(23)00144-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Culyer AJ, Lomas J. Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision making in healthcare: do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2(3):357 371. Available from: https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/evp/2/3/article-p357.xml [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chalkidou K, Li R, Culyer AJ, Glassman A, Hofman KJ, Teerawattananon Y. Health technology assessment: global advocacy and local realities comment on “priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness”. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(4):233–6. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Molaro M, Mohan S, She B, Chalkley M, Colbourn T, Collins JH, et al. A new approach to Health Benefits Package design: an application of the Thanzi La Onse model in Malawi. PLoS Comput Biol. 2024;20(9):e1012462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Boniol M, Kunjumen T, Nair TS, Siyam A, Campbell J, Diallo K. The global health workforce stock and distribution in 2020 and 2030: a threat to equity and “universal” health coverage?. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(6):e009316. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.World Health Organization. Global strategy on human resources for health: workforce 2030; 2016. [cited 2024 July 03]. Available from: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/250368/9789241511131-eng.pdf?sequence=1.
  • 24.Sakala JJ, Chimatiro CS, Salima R, Kapachika A, Kalepa J, Stones W. The Integration of vertical and horizontal programmes for health systems strengthening in Malawi: a case study. Malawi Med J. 2022;34(3):206–12. doi: 10.4314/mmj.v34i3.11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ministry of Health (MOH). Resource mapping 2018–2020. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Huffstetler HE, Bandara S, Bharali I, Kennedy Mcdade K, Mao W, Guo F, et al. The impacts of donor transitions on health systems in middle-income countries: a scoping review. Health Policy Plan. 2022;37(9):1188–202. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czac063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.UNAIDS. AIDSinfo. UNAIDS, Geneva; 2022. [cited 2023 Nov 13]. Available from: http://aidsinfo.unaids.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tram KH, Ratevosian J, Beyrer C. By executive order: The likely deadly consequences associated with a 90-day pause in PEPFAR funding. J Int AIDS Soc. 2025;28(3):e26431. doi: 10.1002/jia2.26431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nichols BE, Geng EH, Moakley E, Phillips AN, Imai-Eaton JW, Stover J, et al. Rapid development of an online tracker to communicate the human impact of abruptly halting PEPFAR support. J Int AIDS Soc. 2025;28(3):e26433. doi: 10.1002/jia2.26433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Louise Gaynor-Brook

8 Oct 2024

Dear Dr Molaro,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "The potential impact of declining development assistance for healthcare on population health: projections for Malawi" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your appeal has been considered by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

Before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Oct 10 2024 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email me at lgaynor@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Louise Gaynor-Brook

29 Jan 2025

Dear Dr Molaro,

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript "The potential impact of declining development assistance for healthcare on population health: projections for Malawi" (PMEDICINE-D-24-03289R1) to PLOS Medicine. Please accept my apologies for the delay in coming to a decision. The paper has been reviewed by subject experts and a statistician; their comments are included below and can also be accessed here: [LINK]

As you will see, the reviewers thought your manuscript addresses an important research question, but they also had some major concerns. Specifically, they asked for more explanation and discussion of the model, as well as more contextualisation to generalize these findings. After discussing the paper with the editorial team and an academic editor with relevant expertise, I'm pleased to invite you to revise the paper in response to the reviewers' comments. We plan to send the revised paper to some or all of the original reviewers, and we cannot provide any guarantees at this stage regarding publication.

When you upload your revision, please include a point-by-point response that addresses all of the reviewer and editorial points, indicating the changes made in the manuscript and either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please also be sure to check the general editorial comments at the end of this letter and include these in your point-by-point response. When you resubmit your paper, please include a clean version of the paper as the main article file and a version with changes tracked as a marked-up manuscript. It may also be helpful to check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper.

We ask that you submit your revision by Feb 19 2025 11:59PM. However, if this deadline is not feasible, please contact me by email, and we can discuss a suitable alternative.

Don't hesitate to contact me directly with any questions (lgaynor@plos.org).

Best regards,

Suzanne

Suzanne de Bruijn, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Medicine

Sbruijn@plos.org

on behalf of

Louise

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

lgaynor@plos.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Comments from the academic editor:

The research question is important, but there are limitations in the manuscript in its current form.

1. In its current form, there is limited generalisability outside of Malawi. Malawi also has certain unique population, healthcare, and economic features which mean that findings could only be generalised to other countries in the region or globally with extreme caution. Considerable editing and contextualisation in the introduction and discussion would help here.

2. The authors should work to improve accessibility and clarity in their reporting, to ensure the broad audience of PLOS Medicine can understand what has been done, and why it is important.

3. Reporting of methods and results are very brief currently, and would need to be substantially expanded to allow readers (and particularly general medical/public heath readers not in the field of development/development economics) to appraise the quality and rigour of the work that has been done.

4. In particular, some model inputs were not clear to me. For example, the impact on NCDs was mentioned, but it was not clear from this manuscript which NCDs contributed data. Trauma and road traffic injuries are a major contributor to ill health and healthcare utilisation in Malawi, particularly amongst the working age population. But I didn’t see whether they were counted as contributors. To be clear, this is only one example, and I could think of many others (eg air pollution as a “risk factor”, among others). The set of risk factors and conditions included may be comprehensive as the authors state, but I couldn’t find this information in the manuscript - currently there is only a link to another pre-print reference. The methods and sources of data for this manuscript should be described in full, and stand on their own.

5. The authors should provide greater critique of sources of input data. Particularly they should discuss whether GDB estimates (given the GBD’s input data) have sufficient validity and accuracy for Malawi to justify the level of precision of their estimates.

6. The authors make a strong call in the discussion section for this modelling approach to be more widely used in development and healthcare policy. However, they do not reflect on the ethical issues around resource allocation based on these outputs. Allocation based on modelling like this may or may not be “fairer” than current approaches, but the authors should at least tackle this question in the Discussion. Specifically, from the results of their research, what would they recommend the international donor community and Malawi ministry of health fund differently over the next 10-20 years, and what would the likely consequences (positive and negative) of this be? What if this approach was applied in other countries in the region? Right now, (somewhat simplistically) conclusions reads as “we developed a very sophisticated way of predicting impact of funding, and countries should use it”.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The Thanzi La Onse (TLO) model offers an innovative framework to simulate various health expenditure scenarios, yielding valuable insights into the projected health burden and resource needs within Malawi's healthcare system. However, despite the model's comprehensive approach, specific methodological aspects require enhanced transparency and rigor to ensure greater clarity and reliability in the findings. My comments are as in the following.

Major comments:

a) Several assumptions are made regarding the expansion of human resources for health (HRH) based on GDP growth rates. These assumptions need further justification, particularly the assumption of constant GDP and fraction of GDP allocated to health (fHE) over the 2019-2040 period. Given the volatility in these figures, assumptions may need to be adapted or justified with additional context.

b) The manuscript notes an assumption of perfect consumable availability throughout the model's projections. Although a sensitivity analysis is presented for this assumption, it would be beneficial to integrate more nuanced scenarios (e.g., variable consumable availability in response to funding changes) to improve the model's realism and applicability.

c) The TLO model is complex, capturing various factors affecting health in Malawi. Yet, there is limited discussion on the specific calibration of model parameters to real-world data (2015-2019). Including a summary of how well the model's outputs match historical data would strengthen its validity and improve transparency.

d) The model enforces HRH constraints by limiting healthcare delivery based on available patient-facing time, yet does not fully account for productivity variations over time.

e) The model appears to assume uniform availability of HRH across all districts and facility levels, which may not be reflective of reality. More granular modelling, with variations in HRH distribution and healthcare access across different regions, would increase accuracy.

f) While the manuscript reports 95% confidence intervals for projections (e.g., DALYs), there is limited detail on how these intervals were computed. Clarification on the statistical methods used to calculate the intervals, including any resampling or bootstrapping techniques, would strengthen the reliability of these estimates.

g) Although the model has undergone internal validation, it lacks external validation against other health projection models or empirical data. Benchmarking projections against independent data sources or similar models could add credibility and confidence in the findings.

h) The manuscript presents different growth scenarios for health expenditure, but additional statistical comparisons between scenarios would be valuable. For instance, a quantitative comparison (e.g., through effect size calculations or relative risk reduction) of health outcomes across scenarios could help quantify the impacts of varying health expenditure levels more precisely.

i) Although the model is open-source, detailed documentation on data inputs and assumptions in the supplemental materials would support reproducibility. Clear data availability statements, particularly for health outcome and HRH projections, could enhance transparency.

Additional comments:

j) The model assumes consistent effectiveness of interventions throughout the projection period. Yet, changes in intervention efficacy (e.g., due to drug resistance, policy shifts) can impact outcomes. Incorporating variable effectiveness rates or sensitivity analyses on intervention efficacy would enhance the model's adaptability to real-world conditions.

k) While the model assesses the DALYs for general categories (e.g., HIV/AIDS, NCDs), the aggregation of different health conditions within these broad categories limits the granularity of the findings. Further breakdown of health outcomes could allow for more targeted conclusions, particularly given the differing health service requirements across diseases like diabetes versus COPD within the NCDs category.

l) While consumable availability is addressed as either perfect or present-day, this binary approach may not capture the complexity of real-world supply chain challenges. A more nuanced approach, considering gradual improvements or degradation in consumable supply with changing funding levels, would provide a more granular view of system constraints.

m) While the TLO model captures demographic growth and disease incidence, it does not appear to fully account for social determinants of health or regional disparities within Malawi. Including these variables or discussing their potential impact on projections would improve the model's applicability to varied demographic settings within the country.

n) The manuscript would benefit from discussing projection accuracy metrics, such as mean absolute error (MAE) or root mean square error (RMSE), based on past health outcomes.

o) The manuscript could enhance its scenario comparison by quantifying the differences between them with confidence intervals. This would help in clearly illustrating the statistical significance (or lack thereof) between the health outcomes across different expenditure scenarios.

p) A more detailed description of the data sources used to populate the model would improve transparency. This should include the quality, limitations, and temporal range of each dataset, particularly for health burden and expenditure data.

Reviewer #2: This article reports the results from a simulation modeling exercise focused on the potential impact of decreases in health spending on the health burden in Malawi. The authors are to be commended for applying their skill set and methodology on a relevant and important case study. The results from the study provide useful insights for stakeholders in the health sector in Malawi on the implications of various scenarios of health spending that could potentially materialize. It therefore offers policymakers and decision makers in the sector possible future outcomes that can be targeted with current actions. I provide some additional comments below to further strengthen the current manuscript.

Feedback

- Recommend adding text in the introduction or discussion to clearly highlight that the results highlighted in the study are based on hypothetical scenarios which may or may not occur depending on actions that are taken. Thus, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based decision making for readers and stakeholders in the sector.

- While the simulation platform's original documentation is referenced, I recommend a summary paragraph on the model components to orient readers who may be encountering this model for the first time.

- It may be useful for the readers to add text for why the IHME dataset rather than other alternative sources of this data is utilized in the study and also why the particular dataset is utilized and not the updated versions of the IHME dataset.

- Recommend adding a paragraph to the discussion that discusses the results from this exercise in context with either any relevant studies that discuss the implication of future spending and health outcomes in Malawi or perhaps in comparable neighboring countries.

- You do this a bit in the section where you highlight the assumptions embedded in the choices available in the simulation model set up but I recommend also adding a paragraph to the discussion in which you discuss the other factors beyond human resources that impact disease burden covering factors in the health sector such as the availability of medicines etc. but also factors outside the health sector such as sanitation, employment etc. that impact health outcomes.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents an interesting approach with innovative modeling and data analysis. To enhance its clarity and comprehensiveness, it would be beneficial to expand on the following areas:

* Methods:

o Provide more details on the scenarios presented in Table 1, specifically explaining how key parameters (e.g., gGDP, gfHE) interact. Are these variables simultaneously determined at certain levels?

o Does the model assume a constant productivity level for the health workforce, considering the projected increase in the number of health workers.

*Results:

o Further elaboration on the modeling results related to HRH capacity is recommended, as this is a critical component of the theory of change presented. Specify the number of health workers required under each scenario and assess whether these projections are realistic given the country's existing capacity to train and deploy health workers, as well as current health labor market entry patterns. Consider discussing potential constraints and their implications for future health expenditures.

* Implications:

o Outline specific policy recommendations derived from the analysis and results.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link: [LINK]

--------------------------------------------------------- ---

General editorial requests:

(Note: not all will apply to your paper, but please check each item carefully)

* We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. Please do not add or remove authors without first discussing this with the handling editor. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

* Please upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

* Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information (web or email address) for obtaining the data. Please note that a study author cannot be the contact person for the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

* We expect all researchers with submissions to PLOS in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript to make all author-generated code available without restrictions upon publication of the work. In cases where code is central to the manuscript, we may require the code to be made available as a condition of publication. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the code is reusable and well documented. Please make any custom code available, either as part of your data deposition or as a supplementary file. Please add a sentence to your data availability statement regarding any code used in the study, e.g. "The code used in the analysis is available from Github [URL] and archived in Zenodo [DOI link]" Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/materials-software-and-code-sharing and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. Because Github depositions can be readily changed or deleted, we encourage you to make a permanent DOI'd copy (e.g. in Zenodo) and provide the URL.

* [EDITOR: CHECK FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, COI, DAS, AND ETHICS STATEMENTS AND INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY REQUESTS]

* Please ensure that the study is reported according to the [XXXX] guideline and include the completed [XXXX] checklist as Supporting Information. When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per [XXXX] guideline (S1 Checklist)."

FORMATTING - GENERAL

* Abstract: Please structure your abstract using the PLOS Medicine headings (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions). Please combine the Methods and Findings sections into one section.

* At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Ideally each sub-heading should contain 2-3 single sentence, concise bullet points containing the most salient points from your study. In the final bullet point of 'What Do These Findings Mean?', please include the main limitations of the study in non-technical language. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary.

* Please express the main results with 95% CIs as well as p values. When reporting p values please report as p<0.001 and where higher as the exact p value p=0.002, for example. Throughout, suggest reporting statistical information as follows to improve clarity for the reader "22% (95% CI [13%,28%]; p</=)". Please be sure to define all numerical values at first use.

* Please include page numbers and line numbers in the manuscript file. Use continuous line numbers (do not restart the numbering on each page).

* Please cite the reference numbers in square brackets. Citations should precede punctuation.

FIGURES AND TABLES

* Please provide titles and legends for all figures and tables (including those in Supporting Information files).

* Please define all abbreviations used in each figure/table (including those in Supporting Information files).

* Please consider avoiding the use of red and green in order to make your figure more accessible to those with color blindness.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

* Please note that supplementary material will be posted as supplied by the authors. Therefore, please amend it according to the relevant comments outlined here.

* Please cite your Supporting Information as outlined here: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/supporting-information

REFERENCES

* PLOS uses the numbered citation (citation-sequence) method and first six authors, et al.

* Please ensure that journal name abbreviations match those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/journals), and are appropriately formatted and capitalised.

* Where website addresses are cited, please include the complete URL and specify the date of access (e.g. [accessed: 12/06/2023]).

* Please also see https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references for further details on reference formatting.

[STUDY TYPE-SPECIFIC REQUESTS - DELETE SECTIONS AS NECESSARY]

RCTs [REFER TO RCT CHECKLIST AND MEETING NOTES FOR DETAILS TO ADD]

* PLOS Medicine requires that all trials be prospectively registered in one of registries recognized by WHO. Please ensure that study registration details are included in the Methods section.

* Please structure the Methods section using the following sub-headings: Study design and participants, Randomization and masking, Procedures, Outcomes, Statistical analysis.

* The following outcomes measures [ADD DETAILS AS NEEDED OR DELETE BULLET POINT] appear to differ between the submitted manuscript and the protocol [and/or trial registry]. Please clarify and explain all discrepancies between the paper and protocol. If the outcomes were not prespecified in the protocol, please define them in the Methods (Outcomes section) as post hoc and explain why they were added. Post-hoc comparisons should be presented as hypothesis generating rather than conclusive.

* Please ensure that all prespecified outcomes (primary, secondary, and exploratory) are listed in the Methods/Outcomes section and indicate whether there are outcomes that are not presented in the current report.

* Please specify the dates (Month Day, Year) during which study enrollment and follow up occurred.

* Please include absolute numbers wherever you report percentages; eg, n/N (%)

* Please present the safety data for the study including numbers of specific events and whether or not adverse events are thought to be related to treatment. AEs should be reported in the abstract, per CONSORT and CONSORT-Harms.

* Please complete the CONSORT checklist (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort/) and ensure that all components of CONSORT are present in the manuscript, including how randomization was performed, allocation concealment, blinding of intervention, definition of lost to follow-up, power statement. When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* Please report your abstract according to CONSORT for abstracts, following the PLOS Medicine abstract structure (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions) https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort-abstracts/

* If your trial had to undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances, please complete the CONSERVE-CONSORT checklist and provide in your Supporting Information; (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/guidelines-for-reporting-trial-protocols-and-completed-trials-modified-due-to-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-other-extenuating-circumstances-the-conserve-2021-statement/). When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* In keeping with our commitment to Open Science, please include the study protocol document and analysis plan (including any amendments) as Supporting Information to be published with the manuscript if accepted.

* Please note that PLOS Medicine requires prospective, public registration of a data sharing plan (as part of mandatory clinical trials registration) for all clinical trials that began enrollment on or after January 1, 2019, in accordance with ICMJE requirements.

OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES

* Abstract: Please include the study design, population and setting, number of participants, years during which the study took place (enrollment and follow up), length of follow up, and main outcome measures.

* Please ensure that the study is reported according to the STROBE (or appropriate STOBE extension) guideline (available from: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe) and include the completed STROBE (or STROBE extension) checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* [FOR POPULATION HEALTH/REGISTRY STUDIES] Please ensure that the study is reported according to the RECORD guideline (available from https://www.record-statement.org) and include the completed checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Reporting of Studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-Collected Data (RECORD) guideline (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* [FOR POPULATION HEALTH ESTIMATES] Please ensure that the study is reported according to the GATHER statement (available from https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/gather-statement) and include the completed checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) statement (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* [FOR MEDIATION ANALYSES] We recommend that the study is reported according to the AGReMA statement (https://agrema-statement.org/#:~:text=AGReMA%20is%20an%20evidence%2D%20and,randomised%20trials%20and%20observational%20studies) and include the completed checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses (AGReMA) statement (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* For all observational studies, in the manuscript text, please indicate: (1) the specific hypotheses you intended to test, (2) the analytical methods by which you planned to test them, (3) the analyses you actually performed, and (4) when reported analyses differ from those that were planned, transparent explanations for differences that affect the reliability of the study's results. If a reported analysis was performed based on an interesting but unanticipated pattern in the data, please be clear that the analysis was data driven.

* Please state in the Methods section whether the study had a prospective protocol or analysis plan. If a prospective analysis plan (from your funding proposal, IRB or other ethics committee submission, study protocol, or other planning document written before analyzing the data) was used in designing the study, please include the relevant document(s) with your revised manuscript as a Supporting Information file to be published alongside your study and cite it in the Methods section. A legend for this file should be included at the end of your manuscript. If no such document exists, please make sure that the Methods section transparently describes when analyses were planned, and when/why any data-driven changes to analyses took place. Changes in the analysis, including those made in response to peer review comments, should be identified as such in the Methods section of the paper, with rationale.

MODELLING STUDIES

The following list is derived from Geoffrey P Garnett, Simon Cousens, Timothy B Hallett, Richard Steketee, Neff Walker. Mathematical models in the evaluation of health programmes. (2011) Lancet DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61505-X:

* If pertinent, please provide a diagram that shows the model structure, including how the natural history of the disease is represented, the process and determinants of disease acquisition, and how the putative intervention could affect the system.

* Please provide a complete list of model parameters, including clear and precise descriptions of the meaning of each parameter, together with the values or ranges for each, with justification or the primary source cited and important caveats about the use of these values noted.

* Please provide a clear statement about how the model was fitted to the data, including goodness-of-fit measure, the numerical algorithm used, which parameter varied, constraints imposed on parameter values, and starting conditions.

* For uncertainty analyses, please state the sources of uncertainties quantified and not quantified [can include parameter, data, and model structure].

* Please provide sensitivity analyses to identify which parameter values are most important in the model. Uncertainty estimates seek to derive a range of credible results on the basis of an exploration of the range of reasonable parameter values. The choice of method should be presented and justified.

* Please discuss the scientific rationale for the choice of model structure and identify points where this choice could influence conclusions drawn. Please also describe the strength of the scientific basis underlying the key model assumptions.

* For studies that develop a prediction model or evaluate its performance, please ensure that the study is reported according to the TRIPOD statement (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/tripod-statement) and include the completed checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement (S1 Checklist)." For studies using machine learning, please use the TRIPOD-AI checklist. When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES

* Please ensure that the study is reported according to the STARD guideline (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard/) and include the completed STARD checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* Please structure your Abstract according to STARD for Abstracts (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard-abstracts/).

* Please structure the Methods section using the following sub-headings: Study design, Participants, Test methods, Analysis.

* Please include a diagram to describe the flow of participants through the study (typically figure 1).

MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION STUDIES

* Please ensure that the study is reported according to the STROBE-MR guideline (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/) and include the completed STROBE-MR checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, specific for mendelian randomization (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* In the Introduction, please describe the exposure and the evidence for a potential causal relationship between exposure and outcome.

* In the Methods, please explicitly state the 3 core instrumental variable assumptions for the main analysis (relevance, independence, and exclusion restriction), as well assumptions for any additional or sensitivity analysis.

* In the Methods, please describe the MR estimator (e.g., 2-stage least squares, Wald ratio) and related statistics. Detail the included covariates and, in case of 2-sample MR, whether the same covariate set was used for adjustment in the 2 samples.

* If you are presenting an instrumental variable estimate, please compare this to the conventional observational estimate.

* Report the associations between genetic variant and exposure and between genetic variant and outcome, preferably on an interpretable scale.

* Report MR estimates of the relationship between exposure and outcome and the measures of uncertainty from the MR analysis, on an interpretable scale, such as odds ratio or relative risk per SD difference.

* If relevant, please consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period.

* Please consider including plots to visualize results (e.g., forest plot, scatterplot of associations between genetic variants and outcome vs between genetic variants and exposure).

SURVEY-BASED STUDIES

* Please ensure that the study is reported according to the CROSS guideline (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/a-consensus-based-checklist-for-reporting-of-survey-studies-cross/) and include the completed CROSS checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) guideline (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* Please report your survey response rates according to AAPOR recommendations (https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/best-practices/)

* Please define how the population surveyed was sampled.

* Please compare characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents if possible.

* If sequential waves of the survey were sent, please specify whether the characteristics of respondents changed over time or remained constant.

* Please include the survey response rate in the Abstract.

* Please include a copy of the survey in the supplementary files.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS & META-ANALYSES

* Please report your SR/MA according to the PRISMA guidelines provided at the EQUATOR site. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/. Please provide the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information. When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline (S1 Checklist)."

* Abstract: Please report your abstract according to PRISMA for abstracts (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419) following the PLOS Medicine abstract structure (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions). Please ensure you provide dates of search, data sources, number of studies included, types of study designs included, eligibility criteria, and synthesis/appraisal methods.

* Please note that we expect searches to be updated to within 6 months of the time of submission.

QUALITATIVE STUDIES

* Please report your qualitative study according to the appropriate study design provided at (http://www.equator-network.org/?post_type=eq_guidelines&eq_guidelines_study_design=qualitative-research&eq_guidelines_clinical_specialty=0&eq_guidelines_report_section=0&s=) and provide the relevant completed checklist as a supplemental file. In the checklist, please include sufficient text excerpted from the manuscript to explain how you accomplished all applicable items. When completing checklists, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

* We recommend that authors use the COREQ checklist, or other relevant checklists listed by the Equator Network, such as the SRQR, to ensure complete reporting (see: http://www.equator-network.org/?post_type=eq_guidelines&eq_guidelines_study_design=qualitative-research&eq_guidelines_clinical_specialty=0&eq_guidelines_report_section=0&s=). Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (S1 Checklist)."

* In general, we expect qualitative studies to include the following: 1) defined objectives or research questions; 2) description of the sampling strategy, including rationale for the recruitment method, participant inclusion/exclusion criteria and the number of participants recruited; 3) detailed reporting of the data collection procedures; 4) data analysis procedures described in sufficient detail to enable replication; 5) a discussion of potential sources of bias; and 6) a discussion of limitations.

HEALTH ECONOMICS / COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES

* Please ensure that the study is reported according to the CHEERS guideline (available from: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/cheers) and include the completed checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement (S1 Checklist)." When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

Decision Letter 2

Suzanne De Bruijn

25 Apr 2025

Dear Dr. Molaro,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "The potential impact of declining development assistance for healthcare on population health: projections for Malawi" (PMEDICINE-D-24-03289R2) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by 3 reviewers. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

As you can see from the reviews, reviewer #1 has some remaining concerns. From his concerns, we would like you to address his comment 'e' and 'f' in the manuscript. We do appreciate you may only be able to do so textually.

Furthermore, we have some editorial issues that needs addressing. These issues are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

In addition to these revisions, you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by May 02 2025 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Suzanne De Bruijn, PhD

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

*Please format your abstract to PLOS requirements.

*Please modify the structure of the discussion, to remove the bullet points and subheadings.

*There are several instances in the manuscript where there are claims of novelty, please remove these (for more guidelines, see below)

Further editorial requests:

* At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Ideally each sub-heading should contain 2-3 single sentence, concise bullet points containing the most salient points from your study. In the final bullet point of ‘What Do These Findings Mean?’ Please include the main limitations of the study in non-technical language.

Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary.

* Please confirm that your title complies with to PLOS Medicine's style. Your title must be nondeclarative and not a question. It should begin with main concept if possible. "Effect of" should be used only if causality can be inferred, i.e., for an RCT. Please place the study design ("A randomized controlled trial," "A retrospective study," "A modelling study," etc.) in the subtitle (ie, after a colon).

* Please confirm that your abstract complies with our requirements, including providing all the information relevant to this study type https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-abstract

* Please ensure that the Introduction ends with a clear description of the study question or hypothesis.

* Please ensure that all abbreviations are defined at first use throughout the text.

* Please confirm that all numbers presented in the abstract are present and identical to numbers presented in the main manuscript text.

* Please review your text for claims of novelty or primacy (e.g. 'for the first time') and remove this language. In addition, please check that any use of statistical terms (such as trend or significant) are supported by the data, and if not please remove them.

* Please remove the 'conclusions' subheading.

* In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe the main limitation(s) of the study's methodology.

* Please define all elements of box plots in the figure caption - center line, box limits and whiskers.

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #1:

a) The manuscript mentions confidence intervals but does not explicitly state whether parametric or non-parametric methods were used to generate them.

b) The study conducted sensitivity analyses on consumable availability, but incorporating additional scenario testing (e.g., simulating dynamic GDP growth rates over time) would enhance the study's robustness.

c) Assessing extreme-case scenarios—such as economic downturns or donor funding reductions beyond IHME projections—could provide deeper insights into the resilience of the model's findings.

d) While the model is calibrated to historical data, it does not explicitly assess predictive validity. The authors could strengthen their analysis by employing a back-testing approach, comparing past projections with actual outcomes (if available). Additionally, external validation using alternative datasets (e.g., WHO health expenditure and outcome trends in comparable countries) could improve the credibility of their projections.

e) The model does not appear to account for the broader economic impacts of health funding changes, such as effects on labour productivity, poverty reduction, or private-sector investment in healthcare.

f) The authors assume constant health expenditure growth rates and fixed intervention effectiveness over time. However, real-world factors—such as medical inflation, technology adoption, and policy shifts—could significantly influence outcomes.

g) While the study estimates the health burden under different expenditure scenarios, incorporating an explicit cost-effectiveness analysis (e.g., cost per DALY averted) would enhance the policy relevance of the findings.

Reviewer #3:

The updated manuscript satisfactorily addresses all comments and questions

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Suzanne De Bruijn

14 May 2025

Dear Dr. Molaro,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "The potential impact of declining development assistance for healthcare on population health in Malawi: a modelling study" (PMEDICINE-D-24-03289R3) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor. I am pleased to say that we are happy that all the scientific concerns are addressed. However, we have a few remaining editorial requests, which you can find at the end of this email. Provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

In addition to these revisions, you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by May 21 2025 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Suzanne De Bruijn, PhD

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

*Regarding your query how to deal with the reviewer query asking for a comparative analysis: I would suggest to leave the statement, but modify it to: To our knowledge, no other study has directly linked future healthcare spending implications to population health outcomes in Malawi or other countries.” Ie, replace ‘At present’ with ‘To our knowledge’.

*Abstract, 1st sentence of Methods and Findings section, please indicate the meaning of ‘this’; eg, “…to estimate the impact *that declining DHA* could have on health system capacities…”

*Abstract, Methods and Findings, I think the word ‘if’ needs to be removed from the following sentence, “The burden due to non-communicable diseases, on the other hand, is found to increase irrespective of yearly growth in health expenditure, if assuming current reach and scope of intervention.”

*Abstract, please add a sentence to the end of the Methods and Findings section to indicate the major limitation(s) of the study/methodology.

* In the author summary, in the final bullet point of 'What Do These Findings Mean?', please include the main limitations of the study in non-technical language.

*Please remove the bullet points at the end of the introduction. Instead, incorporate these sentences into a final paragraph in the introduction.

*Please delete all numbering for the sections, as well as references to these (e.g. in the discussion there is a statement 'as discussed in section 3.2'). Subheadings should be text only.

*Please define all abbreviations at first use. There are some that are only defined at a later point in the manuscript (e.g. HIV/TB are used in the introduction, but defined in the methods). In addition, if an abbreviation is used in the abstract, author summary and main text, please ensure that it is defined in the main text (and also in author summary/abstract, IF it is used more than once in these sections; if only used once, please spell it out).

*Thank you for removing the claims of novelty. However, we found one in the discussion (page 14); Could you please adapt this sentence to “In conclusion, this analysis is the first, to our knowledge, to quantify the potential overall consequences…”

*The first sentence of the funding statement is slightly unclear. Please modify to: “This project is funded by The Wellcome Trust (223120/Z/21/Z), which also contributed to the salaries…” (or similar)

*Thank you for stating all the data is accessible, and providing a link to the model on Github. However, because Github depositions can be readily changed or deleted, we encourage you to make a permanent DOI'd copy (e.g. in Zenodo) and provide the URL. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/materials-software-and-code-sharing and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

* Statistical reporting: Please revise throughout the manuscript, including tables and figures.

- Please report statistical information as follows to improve clarity for the reader ""22% (95% CI [13,28]; p</=)"".

- Please separate upper and lower bounds with commas instead of hyphens as the latter can be confused with reporting of negative values.

- Please repeat statistical definitions (HR, CI etc.) for each set of parentheses.

Decision Letter 4

Suzanne De Bruijn

30 May 2025

Dear Dr Molaro, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Peter MacPherson, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "The potential impact of declining development assistance for healthcare on population health in Malawi: a modelling study" (PMEDICINE-D-24-03289R4) in PLOS Medicine.

Please also note that the study limitations should be communicated explicitly, using the language "The main limitations of the study include..." both in the Abstract and the Author summary. This can be done after acceptance. We of course appreciate that you have already outlined the limitations, but they are not signposted as such, so we ask that this change is made for maximal clarity.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Sincerely, 

Suzanne De Bruijn, PhD 

Senior Editor 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Text. Modelling HRH constraints.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004488.s001.docx (19.7KB, docx)
    S2 Text. Effect of consumable availability.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004488.s002.docx (1.2MB, docx)
    S3 Text. IHME forecasts of health expenditure.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004488.s003.docx (607.7KB, docx)
    S4 Text. Time evolution of individual causes of ill health.

    (DOCX)

    pmed.1004488.s004.docx (902.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers - PMEDICINE-D-24-03289R1.docx

    pmed.1004488.s007.docx (603.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PMEDICINE-D-24-03289R2 Second Round Reviewers Response.docx

    pmed.1004488.s008.docx (286.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The Thanzi La Onse model is open source and available for review and usage at https://github.com/UCL/TLOmodel. In particular, the outputs analysed in this study can be reproduced from model tag "Molaro_et_al_2025_Impact_of_DAH_decline_final" (accessible at https://github.com/UCL/TLOmodel/tags), using the scenario file src/scripts/healthsystem/impact_of_const_capabilities_expansion/scenario_impact_of_capabilities_expansion_scaling.py. The scripts used to generate the plots in the manuscript can be found the same directory, in the file analysis_impact_of_capabilities_expansion_scaling.py. In addition, post-processed output data can be directly obtained from Zenodo at 10.5281/zenodo.15442201.


    Articles from PLOS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES