Financing Health in Africa - Le blog
  • Home
  • Bloggers
  • Collaborative projects
  • Join our COPs
  • Resources
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

A Global Fund for Health: towards truly shared responsibility

3/4/2014

2 Commentaires

 
Picture
Isidore Sieleunou

In a recent Chatham House working group paper, Gorik Ooms (ITM) & Rachel Hammonds (ITM) explored whether a Global Fund for Health is a realistic option in the medium/long term, both from the perspective of so called “donor” and “partner” countries. Isidore Sieleunou had an interview with the first author. Gorik zooms in on some of the key messages, political trade-offs involved and implications.


Your paper comes timely, now that the ongoing (post-2015) debate on Sustainable Financing for Health is gaining momentum (See for example the theme of the next PMAC conference: “Global Health Post 2015: accelerating equity”). Could you summarize the paper’s key messages?

A Global Fund for Health would greatly improve the efficacy of international assistance for health, in particular because it would increase the predictability of assistance in the long run, which is essential for including international assistance in long term planning.

There are disadvantages for the countries receiving the assistance: a Global Fund for Health would be able to impose conditions in a way that a multitude of ‘donors’ cannot. But the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages. Compare it with the difference between charity and social protection: you don’t need to be a member of anything to receive charity, but you cannot rely on charity; to be included in a social protection scheme, you need to fulfill certain requirements, which can be inconvenient.        

You stress that the political interest for a Global Fund for Health may come from an unexpected corner -  more in particular, you see the issue of global warming as a good opportunity. Could you tell us why climate change could help countries rally behind a Global Fund for Health?

Climate change changes the nature of the relationship between countries. MDGs are about poverty reduction – that divides the world into donors and recipients. SDGs are about climate change, that affects all countries and requires efforts from all countries.  

In spite of the urgency of the climate challenge, the priority for developing countries is still development and poverty reduction. Especially climate change mitigation seems to be a far-fetched idea for most African leaders. Keeping in mind the relatively low priority of climate change for African leaders, what makes you think linking a Global Health fund with climate change could be a game changer in the political negotiations for the post-2015 era?

Precisely because the climate challenge is a higher priority for the wealthier countries, it puts poorer countries in a stronger bargaining position. They can say: “If you want shared responsibility for environmental sustainability, you will have to accept shared responsibility for social sustainability. Our constituencies will not accept any global deal on climate change that may have a negative impact on our economic growth if there is no compensation.”   

Do you think there are many takers in the Global South for such a worldwide social solidarity mechanism, with countries who will require money on a permanent basis, at least for some decades? Put differently, even if you allow for countries moving from recipient to donor status (or even for recipients putting a small amount of money in the Fund so that they are also ‘donors’), still countries will mainly be donors whereas others will mainly be recipients. How do you see this idea of permanent assistance fit with the ‘Africa rising’-narrative, now that more and more African countries say they want to get rid of development aid in the medium term, as they feel it’s patronizing and keeps them in a relationship of dependency?

I can easily understand the reluctance in the Global South. So far, international assistance has been like charity. If I were in the position of being reliant on charity, my first ambition would be to be in a position where I no longer need charity.

But my question to the leaders of the Global South would be: “How do you want to behave after you will have ended your reliance on aid? Will you behave as the wealthier countries do today, and hand out charity, or will you aim for something better, like global social protection?” I think the idea of global social protection fits very well with the African concept of Ubuntu.

The figures and estimates so far only reflect the first step of the transformation of global charity to global social protection. I think we should move very quickly to a regime under which all countries contribute progressively – the difference between both is illustrated by annex 1 and annex 2.    

In the current geopolitical environment, how attractive is a ‘Global Fund for Health’ for BRICS countries?

There is growing pressure in BRICS countries to increase social protection – and therefore to increase taxation needed to finance social protection. This is not easy, because of tax competition between countries: countries want to keep taxation low enough to attract investment. A global fund for health would not only organise transfers, it would set targets for domestic social protection levels, and that would mitigate tax competition, which is attractive for countries that would like to increase social protection levels but only if their economic ‘rivals’ do the same.

Furthermore, there are different ideas to finance a Global Fund for health. Simon Caney – professor at Oxford in Political Theory and Global Social Justice – proposes to distribute global emission rights through an auction mechanism. The countries or companies that are most able to ‘transform’ emission of greenhouse gasses into economic benefits would be willing to pay the highest price. The proceeds could finance a ‘green and social environment’ fund, including a global fund for health. This could be a lot more attractive for BRICS countries than the emission ceilings per country that are on the negotiation table now.

A number of donors and international stakeholders say the idea of a Global Fund for health remains a rather monopolistic approach. Competition of ideas, financing mechanisms and products often leads to better results, they say. What would you answer to them? Do you think a Global Fund for health might affect the quality of DAH in a negative way due to lack of competition ? Or is it the other way around?

Again, compare it with the difference between charity and social protection. Under charity, all rich people give as much as they want, when they want to, to whom they want to give. Some rich people can be generous, and may become less generous if they were asked or forced to pay more taxes to finance social protection. The ‘competition’ between Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other wealthy people may have some advantages that may disappear. Social protection requires coordination: a central body that collects contributions and decides how to redistribute. It seems likely that some particular countries or some particular health issues would experience negative consequences, but overall, I would always prefer to be a member of a social protection scheme, over being the beneficiary of charity.         

You have been working on collective social responsibility, including this idea of a Global Fund for health, for a substantial part of your career. Are you optimistic about the prospects of worldwide solidarity, or social sustainability as you call it?

Yes. It will happen. But I don’t know when. I’ve become fairly pessimistic about the timing, but remain confident that it will happen. The alternative for a global social protection regime is increasing isolationism – every country trying to deal with its own problems on its own. There is no future for isolationism.  Ulrich Beck may sound naïve when he argues that climate change might save the world, but he has a point. Climate changes forces us to think beyond the nation state.     

2 Commentaires

Scaling up Results-Based Financing for faster progress towards the Health MDGs: reflections on a recent donor meeting in Oslo

1/6/2014

19 Commentaires

 
Bruno Meessen (ITM, Antwerp) and Olivier Basenya (MoH, Burundi) report on a donor meeting hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway dedicated to developing a road map for results-based financing (Oslo 11-12 December).

The countdown has begun: there are only 750 days left till the MDG deadline. On the side of donors and agencies, the ticking clock is only increasing the eagerness to accelerate progress. Politically speaking, this timeframe is indeed important in the North, especially in countries like Norway or the UK, where several political leaders have used much of their political capital to lobby for global health at national and international level. Against this backdrop, the PBF CoP facilitation team is fully aware that it also needs to attend donor meetings to explain, bring evidence and share experiences about Performance Based Financing. We were therefore happy to make the trip to Oslo to discuss with donors and aid agencies a road map for the scaling up of RBF(1).

The meeting was opened by Anthony Lake, the executive director of UNICEF, a strong indication that UNICEF is joining the club of agencies committed to integrating RBF in their policy toolbox. The first half-day of the meeting was dedicated to reporting on Results-Based Financing (RBF) progress. We heard about experiences in Tanzania, Zambia and Argentina – all of them belonging to the category of PBF schemes, which focus on barriers on the supply side (2). Olivier Basenya also presented the experience of Burundi. If you are involved in PBF projects, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that PBF is boosting indicators of key health services, especially those aligned with the MDGs, while also leveraging the whole system (in terms of work culture, accountability…).

On the second half-day, we first listened to aid agencies dwelling on recent developments on their part; some of these developments seem very favorable to RBF. For instance, we learned that the Global Fund has realized that their system of granting funding through ‘rounds’ created incentives for countries to avoid risks and in many cases led to proposals with very vertical approaches. The Global Fund will now adopt a more ‘health systems’-style approach, or at least to a greater extent than before. In the future, countries will be expected to organize a country dialogue going beyond the CCM (Country Coordination Mechanism). The new grant system of the Global Fund will also be much more supportive to strategies like PBF, which is seen as a great platform for integrating health service delivery at country level. Prospects seem also good on the side of the GAVI initiative. During the discussion about collaboration between agencies, the case of Benin was of course mentioned, as it is a country where PBF is being co-developed by the World Bank, GAVI and the Global Fund.

We then listened to donors’ (USA, Germany, Sweden, Japan, the UK and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) own stance on RBF. All of them are positive about RBF, even if their involvement and financial commitment vary. Most obviously want to move at their own speed, for a number of reasons, including in line with the concern  not to outpace the progressive building of the evidence base. We realized that donor support to countries is still highly determined and shaped by their existing aid instruments (and national aid operators). So changes will perhaps come more slowly than we would like, in this respect, but we should already appreciate that Germany, the US,  the UK and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are already funding pilot RBF schemes in different countries.

What are the key messages for countries?

In Oslo, we discussed of course many things. Here are some interesting messages for the ones among you who are involved in formulating and implementing RBF at country level.

  • RBF is recognized by the international community of aid actors as a key mechanism to accelerate progress towards the MDGs by focusing on frontline services. At country level, your own responsibility may be to use the MDG deadline to put pressure on donors and your government to commit to an agenda focusing on results. 
  • Having said that, it is also crucial to keep in mind that RBF must be anchored in broader and longer term agendas such as health systems strengthening and universal health coverage. This has important consequences: for instance, there was a consensus in Oslo that aid agencies adopting the RBF approach should support a single national RBF strategy (and not develop their own schemes). Hence, at country level, keep on working on the integration of your RBF strategy in the national health care financing strategy. Among other advantages, PBF is a great entry point for your Ministry of Health to learn to purchase health services in a strategic manner. 
  • Donors and agencies are willing to explore the many possible ways that exist for collaborating around RBF. For instance, it is of course possible to fund a RBF scheme without going through the Trust Fund managed by the World Bank. We felt a lot of commitment at this level, but some questions remain. We offered the service of the CoP to document and share some successful experiences (cf. Rwanda, Burundi, Benin…). 
  • Senior conference participants highlighted one of the greatest assets of RBF: the emphasis the strategy puts on learning and the opportunity it offers to improving one’s action. As illustrated by the experiences from different countries presented at the meeting, and aptly summarized by Tore Godal, the convenor of the meeting, RBF is a problem-solving strategy. Having said this, we believe that even more efforts could be taken to improve PBF, among other things, by better taking into account evidence generated outside the RBF community. For instance, to our knowledge, very few RBF schemes have already responded to the large body of evidence showing that neonatal mortality is one of the new priorities in sub-Saharan Africa. By the way, this is one of the many areas where UNICEF could contribute. 
  • Several experts shared their concern that at country level, RBF could suffer from system bottlenecks, such as poor availability of drugs and medical commodities. We agreed to coordinate our efforts to try to overcome this problem. On the side of the PBF CoP, our wish is to organize an event in 2014 whereby central medical stores would be able to meet their clients (health facilities). We believe that PBF has created a new ecosystem in which health facilities are much more demanding in terms of ancillary services. More about this soon.
  • One of the objectives of the meeting was to discuss the next stage (what needs to happen after the pilot stage). While it is hoped that donors will maintain and expand their support, the consensus is increasingly that domestic financing – or at the very least co-financing - will be the main solution in the future, especially in non-fragile countries. Our own assessment is that there still remains much to do at this level in many countries; in terms of advocacy and engagement (especially towards the Ministries of Finance), but also in terms of support (e.g. on how to adapt public finance mechanisms). 
 
A global learning agenda

As observed by the participants affiliated to the World Bank, the Global Fund and GAVI, a key asset of the RBF approach could be that it will lead to more cooperation between these three agencies, something which failed to happen so far, by and large. The first signs are encouraging. This needs to be confirmed at country level, of course, but we are optimistic.

In Oslo, we all agreed that RBF is a global learning agenda and that learning should not be limited to the demonstration of the impact (or not) of a strategy. In many settings, adjustment of policies will need to take place, in an iterative process, which confirms that the knowledge agenda will have to be connected with implementation. The community of practice has its work cut out, in other words.

Notes:
(1) We also had the opportunity to attend the gala concert in honor of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a great experience which  compensated for the fact that this time of the year is not exactly the ideal period for visiting Norway.
(2) More about PBF in Argentina (and global football icon Lionel Messi!) in a forthcoming blog post. 

19 Commentaires

The Global Fund has suspended Round 11 of its funding: are there any lessons for developing countries?

12/6/2011

3719 Commentaires

 
Isidore Sieleunou

The Global Fund is the largest multilateral funder of HIV, malaria and TB programmes in developing countries. When the organization was first created in 2002, only 40,000 people living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries were receiving lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs. The latest 2010 UNAIDS statistics (UNAIDS World AIDS Day Report 2011 pdf) display an encouraging picture and show that the world can eliminate new HIV infections in children, if it wishes to do so. The report claims humanity has finally “bent the HIV/AIDS curve”, citing a descending trend in new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths over the past decade and the stabilization of the number of people living with HIV worldwide.

So there is momentum, spurred in large part by new scientific discoveries. Enter the ‘historic’ Global Fund Board meeting in Accra. On Tuesday, November 22, the board of the largest provider of antiretroviral therapy in the world, took the unprecedented decision to cancel Round 11 of funding.

The reason for the financial difficulties faced by the GF – as expressed by the Board - echoes previous predictions by Murray et al. that the global economic crisis that began in 2008 would probably jeopardize the capability of the richest countries to meet their pledges.

Even if Stuckler et al. found no robust evidence to support the hypothesis that recessions lead high-income countries to reduce their total development assistance for health, the fear that governments will (ab)use their dire economic situation to cut back state funding for health is far from imaginary, and there may be several other reasons, hidden or not. Keep in mind the recent DFID Aid Withdrawal in Malawi.

Canceling a full round of funding is an unparalleled event in the 10-year history of the organization. Needless to say, the decision has several (dire) implications.

As no new patients will be able to begin treatment (at least in a number of countries), already long treatment waiting lists will become even longer. According to Médecins Sans Frontières, “the devastating effects of the overall funding shortage are already becoming clear. Cameroon and Zimbabwe may soon no longer be able to support people already on treatment, and the Democratic Republic of Congo is capping the number of people able to start ART. In other countries, such as Mozambique, funding problems have prevented the country from providing earlier treatment and better drugs, per WHO-recommended guidelines.” 

The Fund’s Executive Director, Michel Kazatchkine, said: “It is deeply worrisome that inadvertently, the millions of people fighting with deadly diseases are in danger of paying the price for the global financial crisis.”

Round 11 was launched in mid-August 2011. The deadline was supposed to be mid-December 2011. I am very curious to know whether your country had submitted a proposal (or was about to submit one) for round 11? If so, what could be the next step now that this round is cancelled?

Governments in recipient countries will probably need to reconsider inter and intra sector budgetary arbitration through more transparent budgeting practices.

What does the future of the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria in Africa look like amidst shifting political agendas and the global economic crisis?

While contributions to ‘trendy’ agencies like GAVI  have exceeded expectations, the world has failed to adequately fund the Global Fund. Are we about to enter another period of increased competition for resources among the many important global health priorities? Meanwhile, Shafik anticipates that an increasing share of aid will go to tackling other global public goods such as climate change and conflict prevention. So the future looks gloomy.

However, recession does have at least one advantage. It invites us to make sure that the money we spend on health is spent wisely and that budget estimates are based on money we are sure to mobilize. The Busan conference on aid effectiveness is already behind us, but it will remain urgent in the coming years to take another close look at concepts like accountability of donors and recipient countries, and the predictability of aid.

A major lesson of this unprecedented GF decision is that developing countries that are able to raise more domestic revenue will need to do so, and realize that foreign aid should be the exception and not the rule. In other words, they will have to become less reliant on international donors. Even when enjoying the horseback ride, one should always keep in mind that one day, the horse may either suffer from a broken leg or simply refuse to go further.

Now that the financial crisis has brought to light the fragility of Western economies, developing countries must increasingly look domestically in their quest to mobilize more resources for health. Otherwise, how will they ever get off the foreign aid bandwagon which proves – time and again - so unpredictable?






3719 Commentaires

    Our websites

    Photo
    Photo
    Photo

    We like them...

    SINA-Health
    International Health Policies
    CGD

    Archives

    Septembre 2019
    Juin 2019
    Avril 2019
    Mars 2019
    Mai 2018
    Avril 2018
    Mars 2018
    Février 2018
    Janvier 2018
    Décembre 2017
    Octobre 2017
    Septembre 2017
    Août 2017
    Juillet 2017
    Juin 2017
    Mai 2017
    Avril 2017
    Mars 2017
    Février 2017
    Janvier 2017
    Décembre 2016
    Novembre 2016
    Octobre 2016
    Septembre 2016
    Août 2016
    Juillet 2016
    Avril 2016
    Mars 2016
    Février 2016
    Janvier 2016
    Décembre 2015
    Novembre 2015
    Octobre 2015
    Septembre 2015
    Août 2015
    Juillet 2015
    Juin 2015
    Mai 2015
    Avril 2015
    Mars 2015
    Février 2015
    Janvier 2015
    Décembre 2014
    Octobre 2014
    Septembre 2014
    Juillet 2014
    Juin 2014
    Mai 2014
    Avril 2014
    Mars 2014
    Février 2014
    Janvier 2014
    Décembre 2013
    Novembre 2013
    Octobre 2013
    Septembre 2013
    Août 2013
    Juillet 2013
    Juin 2013
    Mai 2013
    Avril 2013
    Mars 2013
    Février 2013
    Janvier 2013
    Décembre 2012
    Novembre 2012
    Octobre 2012
    Septembre 2012
    Août 2012
    Juillet 2012
    Juin 2012
    Mai 2012
    Avril 2012
    Mars 2012
    Février 2012
    Janvier 2012
    Décembre 2011
    Novembre 2011
    Octobre 2011

    Tags

    Tout
    2012
    Accountability
    Aid
    Alex Ergo
    Assurance Maladie
    Bad
    Bamako Initiative
    Bénin
    Bruno Meessen
    Burkina Faso
    Burundi
    Civil Society
    Communauteacute-de-pratique
    Communauté De Pratique
    Community Of Practice
    Community Participation
    Conference
    Cop
    Course
    Couverture Universelle
    CSU
    Déclaration De Harare
    Divine Ikenwilo
    Dr Congo
    économie Politique
    élections
    équité
    Equity
    Fbp
    Financement Basé Sur Les Résultats
    Financement Public
    Fragilité
    Fragility
    Free Health Care
    Global Fund
    Global Health Governance
    Gratuité
    Gratuité
    Health Equity Fund
    Health Insurance
    ICT
    Identification Des Pauvres
    Isidore Sieleunou
    Jb Falisse
    Jurrien Toonen
    Kenya
    Knowledge-management
    Kouamé
    Leadership
    Mali
    Management
    Maroc
    Maternal And Child Health
    Médicaments
    Mise En Oeuvre
    Mutuelle
    National Health Accounts
    Ngo
    Niger
    Omd
    OMS
    Parlement
    Participation Communautaire
    Pba
    Pbf
    Plaidoyer
    Policy Process
    Politique
    Politique De Gratuité
    Politique De Gratuité
    Post Conflit
    Post-conflit
    Private Sector
    Processus Politique
    Qualité Des Soins
    Qualité Des Soins
    Quality Of Care
    Recherche
    Redevabilité
    Reform
    Réforme
    Research
    Results Based Financing
    Rwanda
    Santé Maternelle
    Secteur Privé
    Sénégal
    Société Civile
    Uganda
    Universal Health Coverage
    User Fee Removal
    Voeux 2012
    Voucher
    WHO

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.