What Would It Take to Get Prevention Into the Right Pocket?

We all know prevention makes sense.It saves lives, saves money, and strengthens communities.So why does it still struggle to get funded?

The answer often comes down to one frustrating concept: the wrong pocket problem.

The Prevention Paradox in Practice

Imagine a city investing in cleaner air or early childhood programs.The health benefits show up in hospitals — fewer asthma cases, better long-term outcomes —but the savings show up in someone else’s budget.Education gains, productivity improvements, reduced welfare costs — they all land in other pockets.

This is the wrong pocket problem:one actor pays, others profit.And in systems built around short-term budgeting, that makes prevention look expensive, even when it’s not.

What We’re Really Dealing With

At its core, the wrong pocket problem is not just about money.It’s about system design — a mismatch between who invests and who benefits.

Our fiscal systems were built for acute problems, not preventive ecosystems.They reward efficiency within silos, not effectiveness across them.Health ministries, education boards, and social departments each guard their budgets tightly,while the real value of prevention lies in the spaces between them.

Until we redesign those spaces, prevention will keep losing to treatment — not because it’s less effective, but because it’s less financially visible.

From Cost to Co-Benefit: Rewiring Incentives

To solve the wrong pocket problem, we need to make prevention a shared investment, not a sunk cost.

That means shifting from line-item thinking to systemic financing —from “Who pays?” to “Who benefits, and how do we share those gains?”

Here are three ways we can start:

1. Create Shared Outcome Funds

Instead of single-agency budgets, governments can pool resources into joint funds tied to outcomes —for example, a Healthy Cities Fund jointly financed by health, environment, and housing ministries.Each sector contributes proportionally, each benefits collectively.

2. Use Fiscal Levers that Reward Prevention

Tax incentives, co-financing schemes, and prevention-linked performance payments can make it financially rational to invest early.Our Fiscal Levers Library and Scenario-Based ROI Calculator are designed to help policymakers model these effects before they commit.

3. Measure Ripple Effects Across Sectors

Prevention creates value far beyond health — in education, labor, and social wellbeing.By using Ripple Effect Mapping and Impact Trajectory Simulation, we can make these co-benefits visible, measurable, and budget-worthy.

When each actor sees their stake in the outcome, cooperation stops being altruistic — it becomes strategic.

Seeing the System, Not the Silo

The wrong pocket problem persists because we try to solve it within existing systems.But prevention doesn’t fit neatly into any one ministry or market.It requires fiscal imagination —the courage to ask: what if budgets reflected how life actually works?

Air pollution doesn’t respect budget lines.Neither do mental health, childhood development, or climate resilience.Our financing models shouldn’t either.

Designing for Shared Returns

The future of prevention depends on designing mechanisms of shared return.That’s how we move from isolated projects to systemic change.

At Rypple, we work with governments and partners to:

• build cross-sector ROI models that capture value across ministries;

• design pooled investment structures that align incentives; and

• establish governance frameworks where benefits flow back to those who invest.

Because solving the wrong pocket problem isn’t about moving money —it’s about moving mindsets.

From Fragmentation to Flow

The health of our systems — economic, environmental, social — is interconnected.When we invest in one, we strengthen the others.But only if our financing models let the benefits flow.

The wrong pocket problem is a symptom of fragmentation.Solving it requires what we call Health-ing —the art of aligning governance, finance, and purpose around prevention.

Because the real question isn’t whether we can afford prevention.It’s whether we can afford not to.