Global Health Initiatives and aid effectiveness: insights from a Ugandan case study

Form and functioning: contextualising the start of the global financing facility policy processes in Burkina Faso

BACKGROUND

Burkina Faso joined the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) in 2017 to address persistent gaps in funding for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH-N). Few empirical papers deal with how global funding mechanisms, and specifically GFF, support resource mobilisation for health nationally.

OBJECTIVE

This study describes the policy processes of developing the GFF planning documents (the Investment Case and Project Appraisal Document) in Burkina Faso.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory qualitative policy analysis. Data collection included document review (N = 74) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (N = 23). Data were analysed based on the components of the health policy triangle.

RESULTS

There was strong national political support to RMNCAH-N interventions, and the process of drawing up the investment case (IC) and the project appraisal document was inclusive and multi-sectoral. Despite high-level policy commitments, subsequent implementation of the World Bank project, including the GFF contribution, was perceived by respondents as challenging, even after the project restructuring process occurred. These challenges were due to ongoing policy fragmentation for RMNCAH-N, navigation of differing procedures and perspectives between stakeholders in the setting up of the work, overcoming misunderstandings about the nature of the GFF, and weak institutional anchoring of the IC. Insecurity and political instability also contributed to observed delays and difficulties in implementing the commitments agreed upon. To tackle these issues, transformational and distributive leaderships should be promoted and made effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have examined national policy processes linked to the GFF or other global health initiatives. This kind of research is needed to better understand the range of challenges in aligning donor and national priorities encountered across diverse health systems contexts. This study may stimulate others to ensure that the GFF and other global health initiatives respond to local needs and policy environments for better implementation.

Managing transitions from external assistance: cross-national learning about sustaining effective coverage

The often-prominent role of external assistance in health financing in low- and middle-income countries raises the question of how such resources can enable the sustained or even expanded coverage of key health services and initiatives even after donor funding is no longer available. In response to this question, this paper analyses the process and outcomes of donor transitions in health-where countries or regions within countries are no longer eligible to receive grants or concessional loans from external sources based on eligibility criteria or change in donor policy. The comparative analysis of multiple donor transitions in four countries-China, Georgia, Sri Lanka and Uganda-identifies 16 factors related to policy actors, policy process, the content of donor-funded initiatives and the broader political-economic context that were associated with sustained coverage of previously donor supported interventions. From a contextual standpoint, these factors relate to favourable economic and political environments for domestic systems to prioritize coverage for donor-supported interventions. Clear and transparent transition processes also enabled a smoother transition. How the donor-supported initiatives and services were organized within the context of the overall health system was found to be critically important, both before and during the transition process. This includes a targeted approach to integrate, strengthen and align key elements of the governance, financing, input management and service delivery arrangements with domestic systems. The findings of this analysis have important implications for how both donors and country policy makers can better structure external assistance that enables sustained coverage regardless of the source of funding. In particular, donors can better support sustained coverage through supporting long-term structural and institutional reform, clear co-financing policies, ensuring alignment with local salary scales and engaging with communities to ensure a continued focus on equitable access post-transition.

Developing governance models and funding mechanisms of state-civil society partnerships for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention based on lessons from Ghana

The contribution of civil society organisations (CSOs) to national HIV/AIDS responses in sub-Saharan African countries, with Global Health Initiatives' (GHIs) funding channelled through National AIDS Commissions (NACs), is well researched. Less well understood are the governance models and funding mechanisms being used to successfully engage CSOs in the HIV/AIDS response. Using data from government, donor, CSO and documentary sources, this article characterises the organisational principles and practices and unique funding models adopted by the Ghana AIDS Commission (GAC) to effectively and efficiently engage CSOs in the HIV/AIDS response. It found four major governance principles and practices that target: 1) strategic planning for service delivery; 2) focussed expressions of interest; 3) competitive tendering and contracting for service delivery; and 4) adoption of results-based management. It also identified three predominant funding models that illustrate the application of these guiding principles to harness the inherent strengths of CSOs to more effectively respond to HIV/AIDS, namely: 1) direct funding of locally-based CSOs; 2) funding international and national NGOs to engage local CSOs in partnership; and 3) funding umbrella organisations. These findings are significant for Ghana but they may also have relevance for other low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) that have limited experience delivering HIV/AIDS services through state-civil society partnerships, as well as broader debates on the role of donors, governments and CSOs working in partnership to fight HIV/AIDS.

Inclusive engagement for health and development or 'political theatre': results from case studies examining mechanisms for country ownership in Global Fund processes in Malawi, Tanzania and Zimbabwe

Background

For many countries, including Malawi, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, 2017 was a transition year for support from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as one funding cycle closed and another would begin in 2018. Since its inception in 2001, the Global Fund has required that countries demonstrate ownership and transparency in the development of their funding requests through specific processes for inclusive, deliberative engagement led by Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs). In reporting results from case study research, the article explores whether, in the context of the three countries, such requirements continue to be fit-for-purpose given difficult choices to be made for financing and sustaining their HIV programmes.

Results

The findings show how complex, competing priorities for limited resources increasingly strain processes for inclusive deliberation, a core feature of the Global Fund model. Each country has chosen expansion of HIV treatment programmes as its main strategy for epidemic control relying almost exclusively on external funding sources for support. This step has, in effect, pre-committed HIV funding, whether available or not, well into the future. It has also largely pre-empted the results of inclusive dialogue on how to allocate Global Fund resources. As a result, such processes may be entering the realm of ‘political theatre,’ or processes for processes’ sake alone, rather than being important opportunities where critical decisions regarding priorities for national HIV programmes and how they are funded could or should be made.

Conclusion

To address this, the Global Fund has begun an initiative to shore-up the capabilities of CCMs, with specialised technical and financial support, so that they can both grasp and influence the overall financing and sustainability of HIV programmes, rather than focussing on Global Fund programmes alone. What stronger CCMs could achieve, given the growing HIV-treatment-related commitments in these three countries, remains to be seen. Starting in 2020, the three countries will discover what resources the Global Fund will have for them for the 2021–2023 period. The resource needs for expanding HIV treatment programmes for this period are already foreseeable leaving few if any options for future deliberation should funding from the Global Fund and others not grow at a similar pace.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-019-0475-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A decade of aid coordination in post-conflict Burundi's health sector

BACKGROUND

The launch of Global Health Initiatives in early 2000' coincided with the end of the war in Burundi. The first large amount of funding the country received was ear-marked for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and immunization programs. Thereafter, when at global level aid effectiveness increasingly gained attention, coordination mechanisms started to be implemented at national level.

METHODS

This in-depth case study provides a description of stakeholders at national level, operating in the health sector from early 2000' onwards, and an analysis of coordination mechanisms and stakeholders perception of these mechanisms. The study was qualitative in nature, with data consisting of interviews conducted at national level in 2009, combined with document analysis over a 10 year-period.

RESULTS

One main finding was that HIV epidemic awareness at global level shaped the very core of the governance in Burundi, with the establishment of two separate HIV and health sectors. This led to complex, nay impossible, inter-institutional relationships, hampering aid coordination. The stakeholder analysis showed that the meanings given to 'coordination' differed from one stakeholder to another. Coordination was strongly related to a centralization of power into the Ministry of Health's hands, and all stakeholders feared that they may experience a loss of power vis-à-vis others within the development field, in terms of access to resources. All actors agreed that the lack of coordination was partly related to the lack of leadership and vision on the part of the Ministry of Health. That being said, the Ministry of Health itself also did not consider itself as a suitable coordinator.

CONCLUSIONS

During the post-conflict period in Burundi, the Ministry of Health was unable to take a central role in coordination. It was caught between the increasing involvement of donors in the policy making process in a so-called fragile state, the mistrust towards it from internal and external stakeholders, and the global pressure on Paris Declaration implementation, and this fundamentally undermined coordination in the health sector.

Alternative financing mechanisms for ART programs in health facilities in Uganda: a mixed-methods approach

Background

Sub-Saharan Africa is heavily dependent on global health initiatives (GHIs) for funding antiretroviral therapy (ART) scale-up. There are indications that global investments for ART scale-up are flattening. It is unclear what new funding channels can bridge the funding gap for ART service delivery. Many previous studies have focused on domestic government spending and international funding especially from GHIs. The objective of this study was to identify the funding strategies adopted by health facilities in Uganda to sustain ART programs between 2004 and 2014 and to explore variations in financing mechanisms by ownership of health facility.

Methods

A mixed-methods approach was employed. A survey of health facilities (N = 195) across Uganda which commenced ART delivery between 2004 and 2009 was conducted. Six health facilities were purposively selected for in-depth examination. Semi-structured interviews (N = 18) were conducted with ART Clinic managers (three from each of the six health facilities). Statistical analyses were performed in STATA (Version 12.0) and qualitative data were analyzed by coding and thematic analysis.

Results

Multiple funding sources for ART programs were common with 140 (72%) of the health facilities indicating at least two concurrent grants supporting ART service delivery between 2009 and 2014. Private philanthropic aid emerged as an important source of supplemental funding for ART service delivery. ART financing strategies were differentiated by ownership of health facility. Private not-for-profit providers were more externally-focused (multiple grants, philanthropic aid). For-profit providers were more client-oriented (fee-for-service, insurance schemes). Public facilities sought additional funding streams not dissimilar to other health facility ownership-types.

Conclusion

Over the 10-year study period, health facilities in Uganda diversified funding sources for ART service delivery. The identified alternative funding mechanisms could reduce dependence on GHI funding and increase local ownership of HIV programs. Further research evaluating the potential contribution of the identified alternative financing mechanisms in bridging the global HIV funding gap is recommended.

Global health initiatives in Africa - governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment

BACKGROUND

The advent of global health initiatives (GHIs) has changed the landscape and architecture of health financing in low and middle income countries, particularly in Africa. Over the last decade, the African Region has realised improvements in health outcomes as a result of interventions implemented by both governments and development partners. However, alignment and harmonisation of partnerships and GHIs are still difficult in the African countries with inadequate capacity for their effective coordination.

METHOD

Both published and grey literature was reviewed to understand the governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment of GHIs in the African Region; to synthesise the knowledge and highlight the persistent challenges; and to identify gaps for future research.

RESULTS

GHI governance structures are often separate from those of the countries in which they operate. Their divergent funding channels and modalities may have contributed to the failure of governments to track their resources. There is also evidence that basically, earmarking and donor conditions drive funding allocations regardless of countries' priorities. Although studies cite the lack of harmonisation of GHI priorities with national strategies, evidence shows improvements in that area over time. GHIs have used several strategies and mechanisms to involve the private sector. These have widened the pool of health service policy-makers and providers to include groups such as civil society organisations (CSOs), with both positive and negative implications. GHI strategies such as co-financing by countries as a condition for support have been positive in achieving sustainability of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

GHI approaches have not changed substantially over the years but there has been evolution in terms of donor funding and conditions. GHIs still largely operate in a vertical manner, bypassing country systems; they compete for the limited human resources; they influence country policies; and they are not always harmonised with other donors. To maximise returns on GHI support, there is need to ensure that their approaches are more comprehensive as opposed to being selective; to improve GHI country level governance and alignment with countries' changing epidemiologic profiles; and to strengthen their involvement of CSOs.

Analysis of agency relationships in the design and implementation process of the equity fund in Madagascar

Background

There are large gaps in the literature relating to the implementation of user fee policy and fee exemption measures for the poor, particularly on how such schemes are implemented and why many have not produced expected outcomes. In October 2003, Madagascar instituted a user fee exemption policy which established “equity funds” at public health centres, and used medicine sales revenue to subsidise the cost of medicine for the poor. This study examines the policy design and implementation process of the equity fund in Madagascar in an attempt to explore factors influencing the poor equity outcomes of the scheme.

Methods

This study applied an agency-incentive framework to investigate the equity fund policy design and implementation practices. It analysed agency relationships established during implementation; examined incentive structures given to the agency relationships in the policy design; and considered how incentive structures were shaped and how agents responded in practice. The study employed a case-study approach with in-depth analysis of three equity fund cases in Madagascar’s Boeny region.

Results

Policy design problems, triggering implementation problems, caused poor equity performance. These problems were compounded by the re-direction of policy objectives by health administrators and strong involvement of the administrators in the implementation of policy. The source of the policy design and implementation failure was identified as a set of principal-agent problems concerning: monitoring mechanisms; facility-based fund management; and the nature and level of community participation. These factors all contributed to the financial performance of the fund receiving greater attention than its ability to financially protect the poor.

Conclusion

The ability of exemption policies to protect the poor from user fees can be found in the details of the policy design and implementation; and implications of the policy design and implementation in a specific context determine whether a policy can realise its objectives. The equity fund experience in Madagascar, which illustrates the challenges of beneficiary identification, casts doubts on the application of the ‘targeting’ approach in health financing and raises issues to be considered in universal health policy formulation. The agency framework provides a useful lens through which to examine policy process issues.

Exploring the influence of the Global Fund and the GAVI Alliance on health systems in conflict-affected countries

Background

Global Health Initiatives (GHIs) respond to high-impact communicable diseases in resource-poor countries, including health systems support, and are major actors in global health. GHIs could play an important role in countries affected by armed conflict given these countries commonly have weak health systems and a high burden of communicable disease. The aim of this study is to explore the influence of two leading GHIs, the Global Fund and the GAVI Alliance, on the health systems of conflict-affected countries.

Methods

This study used an analytical review approach to identify evidence on the role of the Global Fund and the GAVI Alliance with regards to health systems support to 19 conflict-affected countries. Primary and secondary published and grey literature were used, including country evaluations from the Global Fund and the GAVI Alliance. The WHO heath systems building blocks framework was used for the analysis.

Results

There is a limited evidence-base on the influence of GHIs on health systems of conflict-affected countries. The findings suggest that GHIs are increasingly investing in conflict-affected countries which has helped to rapidly scale up health services, strengthen human resources, improve procurement, and develop guidelines and protocols. Negative influences include distorting priorities within the health system, inequitable financing of disease-specific services over other health services, diverting staff away from more essential health care services, inadequate attention to capacity building, burdensome reporting requirements, and limited flexibility and responsiveness to the contextual challenges of conflict-affected countries.

Conclusions

There is some evidence of increasing engagement of the Global Fund and the GAVI Alliance with health systems in conflict-affected countries, but this engagement should be supported by more context-specific policies and approaches.

A concept in flux: questioning accountability in the context of global health cooperation

BACKGROUND

Accountability in global health is a commonly invoked though less commonly questioned concept. Critically reflecting on the concept and how it is put into practice, this paper focuses on the who, what, how, and where of accountability, mapping its defining features and considering them with respect to real-world circumstances. Changing dynamics in global health cooperation - such as the emergence of new health public-private partnerships and the formal inclusion of non-state actors in policy making processes - provides the backdrop to this discussion.

DISCUSSION

Accountability is frequently reduced to one set of actors holding another to account. Changes in the global health landscape and in relations between actors have however made the practice of accountability more complex and contested. Currently undergoing a reframing process, participation and transparency have become core elements of a new accountability agenda alongside evaluation and redress or enforcement mechanisms. However, while accountability is about holding actors responsible for their actions, the mechanisms through which this might be done vary substantially and are far from politically neutral.Accountability in global health cooperation involves multipolar relationships between a large number of stakeholders with varying degrees of power and influence, where not all interests are realised in that relationship. Moreover, accountability differs across finance, programme and governance subfields, where each has its own set of policy processes, institutional structures, accountability relations and power asymmetries to contend with. With reference to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, this paper contributes to discussions on accountability by mapping out key elements of the concept and how it is put into practice, where different types of accountability battle for recognition and legitimacy.

SUMMARY

In mapping some defining features, accountability in global health cooperation is shown to be a complex problem not necessarily reducible to one set of actors holding another to account. Clear tensions are observed between multi-stakeholder participatory models and more traditional vertical models that prioritise accountability upwards to donors, both of which are embodied in initiatives like the Global Fund. For multi-constituency organisations, this poses challenges not only for future financing but also for future legitimacy.

Aid alignment: a longer term lens on trends in development assistance for health in Uganda

Background

Over the past decade, development assistance for health (DAH) in Uganda has increased dramatically, surpassing the government’s own expenditures on health. Yet primary health care and other priorities identified in Uganda’s health sector strategic plan remain underfunded.

Methods

Using data available from the Creditor Reporting System (CRS), National Health Accounts (NHA), and government financial reports, we examined trends in how donors channel DAH and the extent to which DAH is aligned with sector priorities. The study follows the flow of DAH from the donor to the implementing organization, specifying the modality used for disbursing funds and categorizing funds based on program area or support function.

Findings

Despite efforts to improve alignment through the formation of a sector-wide approach (SWAp) for health in 1999 and the creation of a fund to pool resources for identified priorities, increasingly DAH is provided as short-term, project-based support for disease-specific initiatives, in particular HIV/AIDS.

Conclusion

These findings highlight the need to better align external resources with country priorities and refocus attention on longer-term sector-wide objectives.

Transforming governance or reinforcing hierarchies and competition: examining the public and hidden transcripts of the Global Fund and HIV in India

Global health initiatives (GHIs) have gained prominence as innovative and effective policy mechanisms to tackle global health priorities. More recent literature reveals governance-related challenges and their unintended health system effects. Much less attention is received by the relationship between these mechanisms, the ideas that underpin them and the country-level practices they generate. The Global Fund has leveraged significant funding and taken a lead in harmonizing disparate efforts to control HIV/AIDS. Its growing influence in recipient countries makes it a useful case to examine this relationship and evaluate the extent to which the dominant public discourse on Global Fund departs from the hidden resistances and conflicts in its operation. Drawing on insights from ethnographic fieldwork and 70 interviews with multiple stakeholders, this article aims to better understand and reveal the public and the hidden transcript of the Global Fund and its activities in India. We argue that while its public transcript abdicates its role in country-level operations, a critical ethnographic examination of the organization and governance of the Fund in India reveals a contrasting scenario. Its organizing principles prompt diverse actors with conflicting agendas to come together in response to the availability of funds. Multiple and discrete projects emerge, each leveraging control and resources and acting as conduits of power. We examine how management of HIV is punctuated with conflicts of power and interests in a competitive environment set off by the Fund protocol and discuss its system-wide effects. The findings also underscore the need for similar ethnographic research on the financing and policy-making architecture of GHIs.