Dataset Information

The 'diagonal' approach to Global Fund financing: a cure for the broader malaise of health systems?

ABSTRACT:

Background

The potentially destructive polarisation between 'vertical' financing (aiming for disease-specific results) and 'horizontal' financing (aiming for improved health systems) of health services in developing countries has found its way to the pages of Foreign Affairs and the Financial Times. The opportunity offered by 'diagonal' financing (aiming for disease-specific results through improved health systems) seems to be obscured in this polarisation. In April 2007, the board of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria agreed to consider comprehensive country health programmes for financing. The new International Health Partnership Plus, launched in September 2007, will help low-income countries to develop such programmes. The combination could lead the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to a much broader financing scope.

Discussion

This evolution might be critical for the future of AIDS treatment in low-income countries, yet it is proposed at a time when the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is starved for resources. It might be unable to meet the needs of much broader and more expensive proposals. Furthermore, it might lose some of its exceptional features in the process: its aim for international sustainability, rather than in-country sustainability, and its capacity to circumvent spending restrictions imposed by the International Monetary Fund.

Summary

The authors believe that a transformation of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria into a Global Health Fund is feasible, but only if accompanied by a substantial increase of donor commitments to the Global Fund. The transformation of the Global Fund into a 'diagonal' and ultimately perhaps 'horizontal' financing approach should happen gradually and carefully, and be accompanied by measures to safeguard its exceptional features.

SUBMITTER: Ooms G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2335098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe impact of donors, such as national government (bi-lateral), private sector, and individual financial (philanthropic) contributions, on domestic health policies of developing nations has been the subject of scholarly discourse. Little is known, however, about the impact of global financial initiatives, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, on policies and health governance of countries receiving funding from such initiatives.MethodsThis study employs a qualitative methodological design based on a single case study: Brazil. Analysis at national, inter-governmental and community levels is based on in-depth interviews with the Global Fund and the Brazilian Ministry of Health and civil societal activists. Primary research is complemented with information from printed media, reports, journal articles, and books, which were used to deepen our analysis while providing supporting evidence.ResultsOur analysis suggests that in Brazil, Global Fund financing has helped to positively transform health governance at three tiers of analysis: the national-level, inter-governmental-level, and community-level. At the national-level, Global Fund financing has helped to increased political attention and commitment to relatively neglected diseases, such as tuberculosis, while harmonizing intra-bureaucratic relationships; at the inter-governmental-level, Global Fund financing has motivated the National Tuberculosis Programme to strengthen its ties with state and municipal health departments, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs); while at the community-level, the Global Fund's financing of civil societal institutions has encouraged the emergence of new civic movements, participation, and the creation of new municipal participatory institutions designed to monitor the disbursement of funds for Global Fund grants.ConclusionsGlobal Fund financing can help deepen health governance at multiple levels. Future work will need to explore how the financing of civil society by the Global Fund and other donors influence policy agenda-setting and institutional innovations for increased civic participation in health governance and accountability to citizens.

Project description:BackgroundMillions of dollars are invested annually under the umbrella of national health systems strengthening. Global health initiatives provide funding for low- and middle-income countries through disease-oriented programmes while maintaining that the interventions simultaneously strengthen systems. However, it is as yet unclear which, and to what extent, system-level interventions are being funded by these initiatives, nor is it clear how much funding they allocate to disease-specific activities - through conventional 'vertical-programming' approach. Such funding can be channelled to one or more of the health system building blocks while targeting disease(s) or explicitly to system-wide activities.MethodsWe operationalized the World Health Organization health system framework of the six building blocks to conduct a detailed assessment of Global Fund health system investments. Our application of this framework framework provides a comprehensive quantification of system-level interventions. We applied this systematically to a random subset of 52 of the 139 grants funded in Round 8 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (totalling approximately US$1 billion).ResultsAccording to the analysis, 37% (US$ 362 million) of the Global Fund Round 8 funding was allocated to health systems strengthening. Of that, 38% (US$ 139 million) was for generic system-level interventions, rather than disease-specific system support. Around 82% of health systems strengthening funding (US$ 296 million) was allocated to service delivery, human resources, and medicines & technology, and within each of these to two to three interventions. Governance, financing, and information building blocks received relatively low funding.ConclusionsThis study shows that a substantial portion of Global Fund's Round 8 funds was devoted to health systems strengthening. Dramatic skewing among the health system building blocks suggests opportunities for more balanced investments with regard to governance, financing, and information system related interventions. There is also a need for agreement, by researchers, recipients, and donors, on keystone interventions that have the greatest system-level impacts for the cost-effective use of funds. Effective health system strengthening depends on inter-agency collaboration and country commitment along with concerted partnership among all the stakeholders working in the health system.

Project description:ObjectivesThe Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) is a multinational, cross-sectional survey designed to assess the current capacity for kidney care across all world regions. The 2017 GKHA involved 125 countries and identified significant gaps in oversight, funding and infrastructure to support care for patients with kidney disease, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Here, we report results from the survey for the second iteration of the GKHA conducted in 2018, which included specific questions about health financing and oversight of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care worldwide.SettingA cross-sectional global survey.ParticipantsKey stakeholders from 182 countries were invited to participate. Of those, stakeholders from 160 countries participated and were included.Primary outcomesPrimary outcomes included cost of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), funding for dialysis and transplantation, funding for conservative kidney management, extent of universal health coverage, out-of-pocket costs for KRT, within-country variability in ESKD care delivery and oversight systems for ESKD care. Outcomes were determined from a combination of desk research and input from key stakeholders in participating countries.Results160 countries (covering 98% of the world's population) responded to the survey. Economic factors were identified as the top barrier to optimal ESKD care in 99 countries (64%). Full public funding for KRT was more common than for conservative kidney management (43% vs 28%). Among countries that provided at least some public coverage for KRT, 75% covered all citizens. Within-country variation in ESKD care delivery was reported in 40% of countries. Oversight of ESKD care was present in all high-income countries but was absent in 13% of low-income, 3% of lower-middle-income, and 10% of upper-middle-income countries.ConclusionSignificant gaps and variability exist in the public funding and oversight of ESKD care in many countries, particularly for those in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

Project description:AimsTo assess the association of social determinants on the performance of health systems around the world.MethodsA transnational ecological study was conducted with an observation level focused on the country. In order to research on the strength of the association between the annual maternal and child mortality in 154 countries and social determinants: corruption, democratization, income inequality and cultural fragmentation, we used a mixed linear regression model for repeated measures with random intercepts and a conglomerate-based geographical analysis, between 2000 and 2010.ResultsHealth determinants with a significant association on child mortality(<1year): higher access to water (βa Quartile 4(Q4) vs Quartile 1(Q1) = -6,14; 95%CI: -11,63 to -0,73), sanitation systems, (Q4 vs Q1 = -25,58; 95%CI: -31,91 to -19,25), % measles vaccination coverage (Q4 vs Q1 = -7.35; 95%CI: -10,18 to -4,52), % of births attended by a healthcare professional (Q4 vs Q1 = -7,91; 95%CI: -11,36 to -4,52) and a % of the total health expenditure (Q3 vs Q1 = -2,85; 95%CI: -4,93 to -0,7). Ethnic fragmentation (Q4 vs Q1 = 9,93; 95%CI: -0.03 to 19.89) had a marginal effect. For child mortality<5 years, an association was found for these variables and democratization (not free vs free = 11,23; 95%CI: -0,82 to 23,29), out-of-pocket expenditure (Q1 vs Q4 = 17,71; 95%CI: 5,86 to 29,56). For MMR (Maternal mortality ratio), % of access to water for all the quartiles, % of access to sanitation systems, (Q3 vs Q1 = -171,15; 95%CI: -281,29 to -61), birth attention by a healthcare professional (Q4 vs Q1 = -231,23; 95%CI: -349,32 to -113,15), and having corrupt government (Q3 vs Q1 = 83,05; 95%CI: 33,10 to 133).ConclusionsImproving access to water and sanitation systems, decreasing corruption in the health sector must become priorities in health systems. The ethno-linguistic cultural fragmentation and the detriment of democracy turn out to be two factors related to health results.