Synergies between the GAVI Alliance and health systems strengthening

Dr. Craig Burgess, GAVI Secretariat

29 May 2008

Overview

1. GAVI Alliance: recognising importance of systems2. Integration of immunisation3. Immunisation services support (ISS)4. Health Systems strengthening (HSS)

An innovative public-private partnership”To save children’s lives and protect people’s health through the widespread use of vaccines”

GAVI Alliance strategic goals

1. Strengthening the capacity of the health system to deliver immunisation and other health services in a sustainable manner

2. Accelerate the uptake and use of underused and new vaccines and associated technologies and improve vaccine supply security

3. Increase the predictability and sustainability of long-term financing for national immunisation programmes

4. Increase the added value of GAVI as a public-private global health partnership through efficiency, advocacy and innovation

Estimated costs & financing gaps for immunisation, 2006-15

Source: Global Immunisation Vision and Strategy – WHO costing

Estimated portfolio - systems / new vaccines ratio

1/3 systems / 2/3 new vaccines

New vaccines figures taken from May 2007 GAVI Board financial forecasts

44% 43% 32% 29% 28% 27% 27%HSS + ISS / total GAVI

support

Routine / campaigns / immunisation days Scale up rapidly and delivery costs shared ’Schedules’ provide contacts with health system Multi-valent vaccines Reach Every District strategy G.I.V.S.- Integrating immunisation in a health systems context

- Other linked interventions

IntegrationNot an end in itself or an objective. Rather as a means to achieve more effective and efficient service delivery

Linking immunisation with other interventions

Vitamin A

Malaria Control

De-worming

IPTi

ITNs

Future

?HPV?

Timing and scheduling of service delivery crucial

Immunisation services support (ISS)Performance based flexible funding$218 million disbursed by Dec 2007 1. Investment: 3 years, proportional to birth cohort

2. Reward: Reward good performance Incentives - $20 per additional child vaccinated DQA during the 2nd year of support

3. What was it spent on?: Per diem, recurrent expenses, training, outreach, demand generation, supervision, M+E, vehicles, cold chain, capital expenditures

Projections

Source – WHO Report on GAVI Progress 2000-2006 & Projected Achievements 2007-2010, 15 November 2007

Coverage of DTP3 Hepatitis B and Hib immunisation in GAVI-eligible countries

11

GAVI HSS

‘To achieve and sustain increased immunisation coverage, through strengthening the capacity of the health system to provide immunisation and other health services (with a focus on child and maternal health)’

Maximum impact at periphery Three non-exclusive themes:

Health workforce Supply, distribution and maintenance Organisation and management

$800 million approved by board for investment

GAVI HSS principles

Interventions complementary to work of other stakeholders1. Country driven2. Country aligned3. Harmonized4. Predictable5. Additional6. Inclusive and collaborative7. Catalytic8. Innovative9. Results orientated10. Sustainability conscious

UNICEF/Giacomo Pirozzi

Rate and pace of uptake of HSS unpredicted51 countries applied for HSS40 approved or pending approval

HSS IRC Nov 2006 Board approved 5 countries

Feb 2007

$92.1 million

Approved

HSS IRC April 2007 Board approved 4 countries

May 2007

$77.6 million

Approved

HSS IRC June 2007 Board approved 7 countries

July 2007

$95.9 million

Approved

HSS IRC Nov 2007 Board approved 13 countries

November 2007

$135 million Approved

HSS IRC April 2008 11 countries pending approval

June 2008

$94.6 million pending

TOTAL - $495 million approved or pending approval

Analysis of 49 proposals ($427 million)75% funding for ‘operational’ level (district and below)16% funding for upstream level (above district)9 % management

Source: WHO / Unicef / UNFPA University of Queensland analysis of first 49 GAVI HSS proposals

Technical Support-Largely domestic, limited dependence on consultants

ON

LY

R3 A

ND

R4

CO

UN

TR

IES

Arm

enia

Bh

utan

Bu

rkina F

aso

Gh

ana

Sri L

anka 2

Ug

and

a 2

Ho

nd

uras

Mad

agascar

Malaw

i

Pakistan

2

Rw

and

a

Zam

bia

Yem

en

Nicarag

ua

Nep

al 2

Mo

zamb

iqu

e

Bo

livia

Ug

and

a 1

Ch

ad

Gu

inea B

issau 2

Nig

eria

Tajikistan

2

CA

R 2

Eritrea

No

rth S

ud

an 2

Afg

anistan

Tajiskistan

1

No

rth S

ud

an 1

Cam

bo

dia 2

Status of Application FormA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A R R R A A A A A A A A R R RFragile NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF F F F F F F F F F F F

## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##TRUE ## ## ## ## ##FALSE## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##MOH EPI ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##FALSE## 7 39% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 6 55%MOH Planning ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##TRUE ## ## ## ## ##FALSE## 9 50% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 3 27%Academia ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 6 33% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 2 18%Civil society ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 8 44% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 7 64%Other internal ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 5 28% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 7 64%

Bilateral staff ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 11 61% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 4 36%

Multilateral staff ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##WHO CO ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 16 89% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 8 73%WHO RO/HQ ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 8 44% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 6 55%

UNICEF Unspecified ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 3 17% ## ## 1 9%UNICEF CO ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 11 61% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 7 64%U`NICEF R/HQ ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 1 6% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 2 18%

World Bank ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 6 33% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 5 45%

Other Multi ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 2 11% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 5 45%

Consultant ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##FALSE## 9 50% ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 3 27%

Constraints: Contextualised, comprehensive, but with blind spots

Service delivery

Health Workforce

HIS

Infrastructure

Financing

Leadership and Governance

Demand

System research

Service delivery

Health Workforce

HIS

Infrastructure

Financing

Leadership and Governance

Demand

Implementation research

AfghanistanBurundiC

AR II

DR

CEritreaLiberiaSudan N

. IIC

ambodia I

Chad

Guinea Bissau II

Nigeria

Sierra Leone Tajikistan IIC

AR I

Cam

bodia IIG

uinea Bissau ISudan N

. ITajikistan I

Armenia

Burkina FasoBhutanC

ameroon

EthiopiaG

eorgiaG

hanaH

ondurasKenyaKorea D

PRKyrgyzstanM

adagascarM

alawiN

epal IIN

icaraguaPakistan llR

wandaSri Lanka IIU

ganda IIVietnamYem

enZam

biaBeninBoliviaC

UBA

Mozam

biqueN

epal IPakistan ISri Lanka ITanzaniaU

ganda I

Operational constraints

Systemic constraints

Fragile StatesNon fragile States

R A R A

Figure 1

Non Fragile Fragile

S

O

Challenges

• Immunisation – systems dynamics (MoH & partners) • Changing the ‘project’ mentality

• Monitoring frameworks • Fiduciary risk

• Adapting performance based funding

• Knowledge sharing