Jump to comment:

• A commentary on Global Health Security Index-A guiding tool for preparing for the next pandemic
  Pranav U Gokhale
  Published on: 8 December 2020

• Published on: 8 December 2020

  A commentary on Global Health Security Index-A guiding tool for preparing for the next pandemic

  • Pranav U Gokhale, Healthcare Analyst University of Wisconsin-Madison

  Introduction and Brief Overview
  The Global Health Security (GHS) Index is the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across the 195 countries that make up the States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR [2005])1. The GHS Index takes into account countries’ capability to prevent, detect, and respond to public health emergencies while also assessing the robustness of the healthcare system in each country. This index is comprehensive since it has the ability to consider political and socioeconomic risks, as well as adherence to international norms, which can influence countries’ abilities to stop outbreaks1,2. The GHS Index has been the creation of Open Philanthropy Project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robertson Foundation1.
  The GHS Index treats biosafety and biosecurity as critical components of global health security. As such, the tool includes numerous indicators measuring country capacities and accounts for differences in priorities between high income and low/middle income countries. The GHS index is based on 6 categories, 34 indicators, and 85 sub-indicators. The six categories comprise prevention, detection and reporting, rapid response, health system, compliance with international norms, and risk environment5.
  This article describes the practical value of the GHS Index and also explains how the methodology of assigning country ranks and scores is helpful in aidin...

  Show More

  Introduction and Brief Overview
  The Global Health Security (GHS) Index is the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across the 195 countries that make up the States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR [2005])1. The GHS Index takes into account countries’ capability to prevent, detect, and respond to public health emergencies while also assessing the robustness of the healthcare system in each country. This index is comprehensive since it has the ability to consider political and socioeconomic risks, as well as adherence to international norms, which can influence countries’ abilities to stop outbreaks1,2. The GHS Index has been the creation of Open Philanthropy Project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robertson Foundation1.
  The GHS Index treats biosafety and biosecurity as critical components of global health security. As such, the tool includes numerous indicators measuring country capacities and accounts for differences in priorities between high income and low/middle income countries. The GHS index is based on 6 categories, 34 indicators, and 85 sub-indicators. The six categories comprise prevention, detection and reporting, rapid response, health system, compliance with international norms, and risk environment5.
  This article describes the practical value of the GHS Index and also explains how the methodology of assigning country ranks and scores is helpful in aiding decision making for different countries on their health system preparedness. This concept is especially very timely in the current COVID-19 pandemic in measuring global health security capacities and pointing out areas for improvement. The main learning from the GHS index is that national health security is fundamentally weak around the world. The average GHS Index score among all 195 countries was 40.2 of a possible score of 100.
  Methodology
  The GHS tool is effectively building on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Joint External Evaluation (JEE) which results from a collaboration that countries can volunteer to undertake to assess their compliance with the standards that have been agreed upon by the international community. The intuitive technique of scoring and ranking is used for summarizing complex health system capacities across diverse contexts3,4.
  Critique/Commentary
  Due to the way the tool is structured, GHS Index may be prone to misinterpretation as a forecasting tool which it clearly is not. It is in fact a snapshot in time of a country’s preparedness in tackling infectious disease outbreaks given the prevailing socio economic and political conditions. It would have been fascinating to see Andersen’s Model of Healthcare Utilization being used in the development of this index since it encompasses predisposing, enabling and need factors driving healthcare resource use. Many commonly used indicators of health security capacity like GHS Index are somewhat a rigid framework of outbreak prevention, detection and response. This framing likely fails to account for socio- cultural determinants of health and broader aspects of population health management which are parts of Andersen Model of Healthcare Utilization. The overall GHS index scores summarize country capacities across all categories. However, countries with high overall scores may still have low category-level, indicator-level and sub-indicator- level scores that more strongly influence outbreak-associated outcomes. A startling inconsistency observed was the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Netherlands, Australia, and Canada ranked in the top 5 countries on the GHS index. However, the top 5 countries as ranked by the GHS index are among the worst-hit countries by COVID-19, with a high number of cases and mortalities6. What would make the GHS index more comprehensive is some more focus on access to healthcare as even in the US one of the key drivers of health inequity is disparity in access. Based on the way COVID-19 has been handled in an inept manner across the world, there should be more learnings around factors affecting decision making that led to this crisis so that we can be more prepared to handle the next pandemic or global disaster. Besides the metrics in the GHS index it looks like political leadership is the most decisive factor in determining success in dealing with epidemics. Based on other background reading it appears that the GHS index expert panel did not directly engage authorities responsible for emergency preparedness in their respective countries and other key stakeholders. Instead, the panel evaluated information provided by each country which caused methodology to be biased and obscured crucial weaknesses in a country's capacity to confront outbreaks. Thus the GHS index is a good start but needs incorporation of more public health measurement factors and political leadership as a factor to make it more representative and possible a predictive tool for future pandemics.

  Reference
  1. Ravi SJ, Warmbrod KL, Mullen L, et al. The value proposition of the Global Health Security Index. BMJ Global Health 2020;5:e003648. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2020-003648
  2. Cameron E, Nuzzo J, Bell J, et al. Global health security index:building collective action and accountability, 2019. Available: https://www. ghsindex. org/ wp- content/ uploads/ 2020/ 04/ 2019- Global-Health- Security- Index. Pdf
  3. Peters DH, Noor AA, Singh LP, et al. A balanced scorecard for health services in Afghanistan. Bull World Health Organ 2007;85:146–51.
  4. Munda G, Nardo M. On the methodological foundations of composite indicators used for ranking countries. Barcelona, Spain Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, European Commission; 2003. https:// pdfs. semanticscholar. org/ f308/ aae4 26de ca90 aa7e 0929 9561 bcfe 10e129b0. Pdf
  5. 2019 Global Health Security Index. 324.
  6. COVID-19 Map. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Accessed May 31, 2020. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top