A new study shows that while prevention is better than cure, it is also less well funded.

Experts have examined the allocation of funds by the Australian Government’s Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). 

Despite public health being a declared priority, the findings indicate a disproportionate focus on clinical aspects, such as treatment and cure, rather than prevention.

The analysis notes significant misalignments in funding distribution. 

It was found that less than 40 cents of every dollar granted through the MRFF’s 'Preventive and Public Health Research' initiative were directed towards genuine public health research.

The MRFF was established to enhance Australia's health and medical research capabilities, however, the study uncovered that only 57 per cent of the 249 projects reviewed were focused on genuine public health research. 

“In Australia today there are unfair and avoidable differences in health between different population groups, and this is one of our biggest public health challenges,” said Dr Saman Khalatbari-Soltani from the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health.

“To address this, funding needs to prioritise public health projects that target the root causes behind these inequities, such as our living conditions, our work, our social supports and so on.”

Adjunct Professor Terry Slevin, CEO of the Public Health Association of Australia, also criticised the lack of transparency and funding.

“Across the board health prevention initiatives are grossly and outrageously underfunded, while treatment and clinical initiatives attract billions of dollars,” he said. 

Slevin emphasised the economic benefits of preventive health, pointing out the potential savings in treatment costs for chronic diseases. He called for a strategic overhaul of the funding model to prioritise effective public health initiatives.

The full study is accessible here.