The Global Fund's paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique

Challenges in international health financing and implications for the new pandemic fund

BACKGROUND

The failures of the international COVID-19 response highlighted key gaps in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). The G20 and WHO have called for additional funding of $10.5 billion per year to adequately strengthen the global PPR architecture. In response to these calls, in 2022 the World Bank announced the launch of a new Financial Intermediary Fund (The Pandemic Fund) to catalyse this additional funding. However, there is considerable unclarity regarding the governance makeup and financial modalities of the Pandemic Fund, and divergence of opinion about whether the Fund has been successfully designed to respond to key challenges in global health financing.

METHODS/RESULTS

The article outlines eight challenges associated with global health financing instruments and development aid for health within the global health literature. These include misaligned aid allocation; accountability; multistakeholder representation and participation; country ownership; donor coherency and fragmentation; transparency; power dynamics, and; anti-corruption. Using available information about the Pandemic Fund, the article positions the Pandemic Fund against these challenges to determine in what ways the financing instrument recognizes, addresses, partially addresses, or ignores them. The assessment argues that although the Pandemic Fund has adopted a few measures to recognise and address some of the challenges, overall, the Pandemic Fund has unclear policies in response to most of the challenges while leaving many unaddressed.

CONCLUSION

It remains unclear how the Pandemic Fund is explicitly addressing challenges widely recognized in the global health financing literature. Moreover, there is evidence that the Pandemic Fund might be exacerbating these global financing challenges, thus raising questions about its potential efficacy, suitability, and chances of success. In response, this article offers four sets of policy recommendations for how the Pandemic Fund and the PPR financing architecture might respond more effectively to the identified challenges.

The Dynamics of Power Flow From the Global Health Financing Comment on "Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process"

This article agrees with Lassa et al that biomedical paradigms and medical professionals are a dominating force within the policy dynamics of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) and that there needs to be greater community involvement in how global health initiatives (GHIs) are adopted, designed, implemented and evaluated. However, we argue that many of the conditions identified are entrenched and perpetuated by how GHIs are financed and the financing modalities employed in Development Aid for Health (DAH), particularly in low resource settings. As a result, the dynamics of power not only flow from traditionally entrenched epistemic authorities but are disproportionally sustained by global health financing modalities that favour particular GHIs over others. As we argue, these DAH modalities can exert forms of power with problematic effects on policy-making.

Partnership and Participation-A Social Network Analysis of the 2017 Global Fund Application Process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda

Background

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was founded in 2002 as a public-private partnership between governments, the private sector, civil society, and populations affected by the three diseases. A key principle of the Global Fund is country ownership in accessing funding through "engagement of in-country stakeholders, including key and vulnerable populations, communities, and civil society." Research documenting whether diverse stakeholders are actually engaged and on how stakeholder engagement affects processes and outcomes of grant applications is limited.

Objective

To examine representation during the 2017 Global Fund application process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Uganda and the benefits and drawbacks of partnership to the process.

Methods

We developed a mixed-methods social network survey to measure network structure and assess perceptions of how working together in partnership with other individuals/organizations affected perceived effectiveness, efficiency, and country ownership of the application process. Surveys were administered from December 2017-May 2018, initially to a set of central actors, followed by any individuals named during the surveys (up to 10) as collaborators. Network analyses were conducted using R.

Findings

Collaborators spanning many organizations and expertise areas contributed to the 2017 applications (DRC: 152 nodes, 237 ties; Uganda: 118 nodes, 241 ties). Participation from NGOs and civil society representatives was relatively strong, with most of their ties being to different organization types, Uganda (63%), and DRC (67%), highlighting their collaborative efforts across the network. Overall, the perceived benefits of partnership were high, including very strong ratings for effectiveness in both countries. Perceived drawbacks of partnership were minimal; however, less than half of respondents thought partnership helped reduce transaction costs or financial costs, suggesting an inclusive and participatory process may come with short-term efficiency tradeoffs.

Conclusions

Social network analysis can be useful for identifying who is included and excluded from the process, which can support efforts to ensure stronger, more meaningful engagement in future Global Fund application processes.

Incorporating operational research in programmes funded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in four sub-Saharan African countries

Background

The current study builds upon a previous situation analysis of the extent to which grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) are being utilized to support operational research and implementation research (OR/IR) activities in recipient countries. The objective of this follow-up study was to identify approaches and pathways to implement an OR component into grants to the Global Fund, in four sub-Saharan African countries. Special focus was given to the Structured Operational Research and Training IniTiative (SORT IT).

Methods

The conceptual framework was based on an analysis to identify elements supporting and blocking the integration of OR, called force field analysis, and a behavioural change assessment covering aspects such as opportunity, motivation, capability and triggers to do the integration. Data were collected through online surveys and stakeholder interviews both via telephone/online conference tools and in person in four countries with a high burden of malaria and tuberculosis. These countries were Ghana, Sierra Leone, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The stakeholders included programme managers, implementation partners, representatives from international organisations, academic and governmental research institutions and other individuals involved in the countries’ needs assessment and National Strategic Plan development.

Results

We identified opportunities to integrate OR into the countries’ programmes during the funding process, the country’s needs assessment being the most important one, including the need of OR-related capacity. Both the force field analysis and the behavioural change assessment showed that the necessary elements to integrate OR were present in the countries. Motivation, capability and efficiency were found to be a managerial value omnipresent across stakeholders. However, those elements were influenced by the tendency to favour tangible assets over any abstract ones, such as increasing organisational capacity in OR.

Conclusions

In each of the countries assessed, there is potential to integrating OR into the programmes supported by the Global Fund. However, given the relative lack of OR-related capacity and skills encountered, a capacity strengthening tool, such as SORT IT, would be of benefit helping to identify and carry forward OR activities sustainably.

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.