data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/af61e/af61e6fa32cb3e4f8163bcaf2bd8899d085d5ac1" alt="Brandon Hill, Student Liaison Officer, AMR Centre Brandon Hill, Student Liaison Officer, AMR Centre"
Brandon Hill, Student Liaison Officer, AMR Centre
Just how much is the world spending to address AMR?
This question has some important implications. Tracking investments keeps global actors accountable to their funding commitments. Quality data on AMR spending is an essential component of financial analyses to inform global response efforts. At a more granular level, financial data could reveal the sectors and responses being prioritized at different levels.
It's easy to ask how much is being spent. Answering this question, however, is much more difficult.
The Global AMR R&D Hub reports that roughly US$ 13.75 billion has been invested annually into antibiotic research and development since 2017 (WHO 2024). Still, R&D is only one component of the global response to AMR. The Antimicrobial Resistance Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF) can help paint a broader picture of AMR financing, amassing almost US$ 30.5 million in deposits since 2019 (MPTF). Still, global investment into AMR is hardly limited to contributions to the MPTF. What about AMR spending at the country level?
This is where tracking AMR investment gets particularly tricky. AMR is rarely a line item on national budgets; only 11% of countries have dedicated funding for the implementation of their multisectoral national action plans (NAPs) on AMR (TRACSS). Estimating spending in the absence of delineated funds is quite difficult, given the multifaceted nature of AMR. Broad investments into laboratory capacity, surveillance, infection prevention and control, veterinary services, and much more could all be considered “AMR spending.” Aspects of other budget line items like tuberculosis might also include AMR elements, further muddying the waters. Where should the line get drawn?
Resource constraints are frequently discussed as barriers to AMR NAP implementation, particularly in low- and middle-income settings (Mpundu 2020, Shabangu et al 2023, WHO 2019). Clarifying AMR spending could help quantify the scale of this resource gap and could facilitate financial analyses to inform the AMR response at various levels. Quantifying spending through dedicated AMR budgets could also spur additional attention to AMR. As the adage goes, “what is measured gets done.”
Still, AMR-specific budgets might not be a universal solution. Deciding how to best track AMR spending will tie into the broader conversation about earmarked funding in global public health, and its trade-off between accountability and flexibility.
It's worth discussing the framework by which the world will track AMR investment, particularly given the financial commitments of the recent UN political declaration on AMR. Agreeing on methods to monitor AMR investment will be essential to keep the world accountable to these pledges and will contribute to a more informed global response to AMR in the years to come.
If you enjoyed this article and would like to build a career in global health, we offer a range of MSc programmes covering health and data, infectious and tropical diseases, population health, and public health and policy.
Available on campus or online, including flexible study that works around your work and home life, be part of a global community at the UK's no.1 public health university.