I agree that declining funding is a major cause of rise in malaria globally . Funding is needed for both diagnosis & management of the disease . Patients present as acute febrile illness to the primary & secondary care doctor & it depends on availability of diagnostic tests to make the diagnosis . Otherwise , empiric therapy is started to treat the patient , but without laboratory diagnosis may not be counted as malaria & valuable data is lost .

The following may be considered in every Malaria and other vector borne disease prone area of the World:

Bad drainage -- more breeding of Vectors -- more vector borne blood protozoan diseases.

So, the alternative is:-

Excellent drainage + increase in frog and other insect killing animals, birds and insects -- less breeding place of the vectors, less chance to survive -- less vector borne diseases.

Regards.

Thanks for your thought provoking question:

A closer look: As it stands, it appears that, irrespective of the efforts made towards curbing the malaria disease burden, there is need to take a closer look into the causes and implications of the prevalence of the malaria disease particularly reflecting on the antecedence efforts towards same. It is important to reflect on the antecedence health promotion and malaria disease control in view of probable subtle factors related to the current malaria trend. Although, it is a common knowledge that most of the high-income countries are in the forefront of funding the malaria control intervention particularly it seems to be endemic, the question is that, why is it that their efforts seem not as productive as expected given that, efforts towards managing and eradicating malaria disease dates as far back as 1960s (Henderson & Kleper, 2013).

Tackling malaria disease trend is arguably a hard task but a possibility with time. According to Henderson et al. (2013), malaria was one of the leading causes of death around the world in the 1960s as such, the WHO devoted over 20% of its resources towards malaria disease control at the time same. Sadly, there was a setback in the malaria control program, hence, it was determined by the WHO and public health stakeholders that malaria control program should be in part managed by the affected countries’ health department. Although the control program was to be managed by the public health stakeholders, the report is expected to be given to the head of state or president of the affected countries instead of the health minister – this seems to be the beginning of the downward slope of a supposedly effective malaria control programs (Henderson & Klepac 2013).

In clear terms, how effective could a Head of States or President who are likely to have limited public health background manage a public health issue (malaria disease endemic)? Since health services differ from country to country, the less equipped health care regions may not be able to manage malaria control program effectively, hence the consistent prevalence in most of the low-income countries. Conversely, according to Henderson & Klepac (2013), the eradication of small pox in the 1970s was achieved within a limited period of time. The success record of Small pox eradication may be connected to the effective leadership and a strong global political will just as it was evident in the recent eradication of Ebola disease within a year. Could it be that the positive outcome of Ebola virus and small pox were due to the fact that these diseases are easily transmittable and could easily ‘cross the border’? This is a question worth pondering with a closer look...

For more text related to my response, you may checkPresentation Global public health challenges: A 20th century closer look ...

In my view the declining in budget might not be the reason. because several studies revealed behaviural gaps among communities towards malaria distribution put risk groups under great susceptibility of malaria. Beyond allocating optimum fund, attention should be given for behavioral perspectives.

Thanks for sharing, I think in last few years, a lot of other health problems get more importance than the tropical and communicable diseases. This could be the cause for increase number of malaria cases globally.

Yes, it is sure that the fight against malaria depond of funding. because, this disease particularly affects poor countries that can not fight against it without support from rich countries

In my opinion, the increase of about 5 million from 2015 to 2016 on three continents (Africa, Asia and South America) is partly due to the cut in funding for control programs, compromising access to medicines. But not only this: malaria is very susceptible to any loosening in monitoring the measures employed for its control.