the new funding model - whofor early applicants, this is the 2014-2016 amount. for interim...

NFM: Key features and implementation

The New Funding Model

Key features and implementation

Mohammed Yassin MD, MSc, PhD

Technical Advisor, TB

Regional Meeting of NTP Managers and Partners, Bangkok,

23-27 Sep 2013


Content

• Introducing the new funding model

Concept Note and Modular template

M Update and preparing for NFM

1

2

3


1

• Greater alignment with country schedules, context, and priorities

• Focus on countries with the highest disease burden and lowest

ability to pay, while keeping the portfolio global

• Simplicity for both implementers and the Global Fund

• Predictability of process and financing levels

• Ability to elicit full expressions of demand and reward

ambition

Principles

of the new

funding model

Principles of the new funding model

The new funding model changes the way

applicants apply for funding, get approval of

their proposals and then manage their grants


Key features

Timing of

requests

• Applicants apply for funding when they want

• Applicants can submit different disease or HCSS requests at different times

• Applicants can use in-country planning cycles

1

• Applicants submit a funding request through a “Concept Note”

• Early feedback from the Secretariat and the TRP = higher success rate

• Upfront risk and capacity assessments

• Differentiated processes to ensure disbursement-ready grants

• Funding requests negotiated before Board approval

• Three years Length of

grants

Early

feedback

Grant-

making

• Applicants are given an indicative funding range over a 3-year period

• The Secretariat will hold indicative amounts for applicants until they apply

Predictable

funding

• Competitive funding in addition to indicative range

• Rewards high impact, well-performing programs

• Encourages full expression of demand

Incentive

funding


How does the new model differ from the

previous model?

1

• Passive role by the Secretariat in

influencing investments • More active portfolio management

to optimize impact

• Low predictability: timing of Rounds,

success rates and available funds

• Ongoing engagement by Secretariat

• Cumbersome undifferentiated process

to grant signing with different delays • Disbursement-ready grants with

differentiated approach

• Timelines largely defined by the

Global Fund

• Hands-off Secretariat role prior to

Board approval

• Timelines largely defined by each

country

• High predictability: timing, success

rates, indicative funding range

From previous model

To new funding model


Overview of the new funding model

NSP

Allocation formula

NSP

support

Band allocation

Concept Note Country

dialogue

Determine /

approve adjusted

funding amount

Unfunded quality

demand

Grant-making

TRP

review

Board

approval

Incentive funding

Indicative funding

Grant

Approval

Committee

Determination

of split between

diseases &

HCSS


• Investment of available funds, for

early impact

• Focus on those most in need (e.g.

underfunded or facing disruption)

• Implementing elements of the new

model

This enabled...

Board approves

immediate

launch of the

transition to the

new funding

model

Purpose of the transition phase of the NFM

7


Participation in the transition phase of the NFM

Who was

invited to

participate?

Countries positioned to achieve rapid impact

Countries at risk of service interruptions

Countries receiving less than they would under the

new funding model principles

1 8


New grants signed

New grants signed

Interim funding through renewals, grant

extensions and redesigned programs

In-country preparation and

national strategy development Standard

Selection of

early

applicants

Early

2013 2014 2015

Interim Selection of

interim

applicants

Implementation Timelines

1

2

3

Application

plus real

time earning

Application, review

and grant-making


Overview on early applicant and interim

countries selected for the transition period

HIV Malaria TB Eastern

Europe and

Central Asia

Eurasian Harm Reduction

Network, Russia, Moldova,

Albania, Kosovo

Kazakhstan, Belarus

Latin America

and the

Caribbean

El Salvador, Jamaica

Regional Elimination

Initiative in Mesoamerica

and Hispaniola,

Suriname

Nicaragua, Dominican

Republic

Asia-Pacific Myanmar, Philippines, India,

Thailand, Nepal, Mongolia, Multi-

country Western Pacific

Myanmar, Regional

Artemisinin Resistance

Initiative, Indonesia

Myanmar, Philippines,

Cambodia, Viet Nam,

Bangladesh, Solomon

Islands, Indonesia, Pakistan,

PNG, Sri Lanka

Francophone

Africa DRC, Cameroon, Niger, Togo

Chad, DRC, Niger, Côte

d'Ivoire, Burundi, Rwanda Benin

Africa and

Middle East

Zimbabwe, Kenya, Lesotho,

Ghana, Malawi , South Africa,

Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania,

Mozambique

Yemen, Malawi,

Mozambique, Nigeria

Swaziland, Zambia,

Tanzania, Sudan

Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Kenya,

Mozambique, South Africa,

Tanzania, Zambia, Egypt

For early applicants, this is the 2014-2016 amount. For interim applicants, this covers the allocation from the $1.9B.

7

6

20

11

26

23 19 28 Early applicant

Interim applicant


Funding during the transition

Concept

Note

Indicative

funding

Above

indicative

Early applicants

Renewals

Strategic

Reprogramming

Grant extensions

1 Interim applicants 2

Indicative

funding

only


Country dialogue concept note

Term used by the Global Fund to refer to the ongoing process that occurs

at country level to fight the three diseases and strengthen health and

community systems

Multi-stakeholder: occurs between implementers, the government

(including national ministries of health and planning), the private sector,

the public sector, civil society, academia, key affected populations and

networks, and bilateral, multilateral and technical partners

What do we

mean by

country

dialogue?

Who is

involved?

Strengthened multi-

stakholder

involvement in

development of NSPs

Key outcomes

specific to the

Global Fund

Development of a CN

from this dialogue

Processes used to

identify and address

weaknesses/gaps

Country dialogue

is country-

specific, country-

led, and country-

defined

2 13


Concept Note

• As a result of the Country Dialogue, applicants will

submit a Concept Note.

• CN will capture country context and response

• CN will capture “Full expression of demand”

(e.g. costed national strategy or investment case)

• CN will capture Global Fund funding request:

prioritizing activities between indicative funding &

incentive funding stream

• CCM will submit Concept Note in most cases

Concept Note

(prioritized/

budget)

2


In the Concept Note:

• Full expression of demand

captured at a higher level

based on a costed national

strategy;

• Applicant will determine

which program elements of

their full expression of demand

should be in their ‘above

indicative funding request’.

Concept note: full expression of demand

Applicants encouraged to

apply for their full expression

of demand

19


• Mandatory attachments

• Supporting documents

Summary information of the applicant and disease

split-1

Country context: An explanation of the country’s

epidemiological situation and the current legal and

policy environment, and how the National Strategic

Plan responds to the country disease context- 10

Section

+

Funding request: How existing and anticipated

programmatic gaps of the National Disease Strategic

Plan have been identified.

How the funds requested will be strategically invested

to maximize the impact of the response- 131/2

.

Implementation arrangements: How the program

will be implemented - 7

Instructions &

Information Notes

Provide guidance to

applicant on how to

integrate key issues such

as human rights, gender,

SOGI, operational risk

1

3

4

5

Structure of the concept note

CCM eligibility: How the application development

process complies with CCM Eligibility Requirements

and dual-track financing- 31/2

2

List of abbreviations and acronyms and list of

annexes 6

The CCM will submit the

Concept Note in most cases

2

16

20130205_ModularApproachMtg3_v1.pptx

The modular approach

The modular approach is a framework used to

structure the information that defines a grant

It runs throughout a grant's lifecycle, providing

consistency at each stage

• During the concept note stage, a funding

request is defined by selecting a set of

interventions per module to align with national

strategy

• During the grant making stage, each approved

intervention is further defined by identifying and

describing the required sets of activities

• During grant implementation, progress of each

intervention is monitored as laid out in the prior

stages

Program level

Module

Intervention

Activity

17

20130705_MAGMKO_vF.pptx

Draft – For discussion only

Modular approach process

Modules /

interventions &

performance info

• Selected

modules &

interventions

• Program goals &

objectives

• Impact, outcome,

and coverage /

output indicators

with associated

information

• High level budget

Detailed list of

products &

PSM costs by

intervention

Detailed

budget &

assumptions

Integrated

summary

view of

performance

indicators,

budget, &

GIMs for

grant

agreement

1 2

4

GIM Selection 3

GAC

approved

funding

ceiling

Concept note Grant-making

TRP

GAC

Grant signing

1

18


Modular approach addresses limitations of the past

Aligns terminology with normative guidance from technical partners

• Incorporates terminology already being used by countries and partners

• Replaces the former SDAs whose terminology differed from technical partners

and was applied inconsistently, presenting challenges for portfolio level

analysis

Bring together activities, funding, and performance tracking into a single

view through the module / intervention framework

• Allows for comparison between funding and performance at intervention level

• Minimizes the use of separate documents which are developed & reviewed in

parallel without clear links

Streamline existing documents across the grant lifecycle with all

information organized by the module / intervention framework

• Enables the content developed in one stage (e.g., concept note) to follow into

the next stage (e.g., grant making)

• Lessens the use of successive tools throughout the grant lifecycle and avoids

the repackaging of similar information in different ways

1

2

3

19

DOTS-based

package

MDR-TB package TB/HIV package

Program Management

Human rights

Six TB modules: 3 Core packages & 3 supportive

Disease components: TB

Monitoring and Evaluation

20

Country types and associated interventions

Co

un

try t

yp

e

(mu

tua

lly e

xc

lus

ive

)

Endemic countries High and medium

TB burden settings

High TB/HIV

countries1

High MDR-TB

countries2

Countries with

high TB/HIV and

high MDR-TB

Core

packages

DOTS-based

package

DOTS-based

package

DOTS-based

package

DOTS-based package

incl. enablers

+ Other High-risk

group interventions

+ Other High-risk

group interventions

+ TB/HIV package

+ MDR-TB package

for high-risk groups

+ TB/HIV package for

high risk groups

+ MDR-TB package

+ Other High-risk

group interventions

+ Other High-risk

group interventions

+ TB/HIV package for

high risk groups

+ MDR-TB package

for high-risk groups

+ MDR-TB package

+ TB/HIV package

+ Critical enablers

Supportive

+ Critical

enablers/Supportive

+ Critical

enablers/Supportive

1. > 5% HIV in TB, or >1% in general population; 2. As defined by WHO – high rate and absolute burden countries

21

TB interventions List of interventions

DOTS-based package • Case detection & diagnosis

• Treatment

• Prevention

• Engaging all care providers

• Engaging communities and civil society (includes social mobilization)

• TB screening and treatment among high risk groups

• Collaborative activities with other sector

TB/HIV package

(high burden

countries or high risk

groups in all

countries)

• TB/HIV collaborative interventions



• TB/HIV screening and treatment among high risk groups


MDR-TB (in high

MDR-TB burden

countries or high risk

groups in all

countries)

• Case detection and diagnosis

• Treatment



• MDR-TB screening and treatment among high risk groups


Human Rights • Law and policy reforms

• Training and capacity building

• Access to justice

• Human rights and monitoring reports

Monitoring and

Evaluation

• Routine reporting

• Analysis, review and transparency

• Surveys

• Administrative and finance data source

• Vital registration

Program Management • Planning, coordination and management

• Grant management

• Supporting procurement and supply management for TB

Consultation Orientation on the NFM

Geneva, 9-11 July 2013

Modular template

Quality assurance

Procurement agent

fee

Modules, interventions and activities will replace current heterogeneous

Service Delivery Areas (SDAs)

• Some current SDAs refer to interventions some are at activity level

• SDAs are not harmonized across the various documents preventing the linking

of targets to budget

TB

Malaria

HIV

DOTS package

TB/HIV

MDR-TB

Case detection& diagnosis

Treatment

Prevention

Purchase microscopy

Commodities

Transport samples

Training

Human rights

M&E

Program

Management

Engaging all care providers

Communities

TB screening Other sectors

Cost Inputs

Product cost

Transportation

Storage

HSS

Activities Interventions Modules Disease/HSS

....

23


Core TB indicators: Impact and outcome

Disease trends Case notification rate

MDR prevalence among new TB patients

TB prevalence rate

TB incidence rate

TB mortality rate

Lives saved based on latest epidemiological data

DOTS based package Treatment success rate – a) all forms and b) bacteriologically confirmed (disaggregated by age

and sex) Case notification rate (per 100,000 population), bacteriologically- confirmed TB*,

disaggregated by age and sex Case notification rate (per 100,000 population), all forms of TB (i.e. bacteriologically

confirmed + clinically diagnosed) *, disaggregated by age and sex MDR-TB Notification of MDR-TB cases – Notified cases of bacteriologically confirmed, drug resistant

TB (RR-TB and/or MDR-TB) as a proportion of the estimated number of MDR-TB cases among notified TB cases

Treatment success rate MDR-TB

Routine reporting Surveys Modeled

24


Core TB indicators: Coverage and output

DOTS based package

Number of notified cases of bacteriologically confirmed TB

Number of notified cases of all forms of TB (i.e. bacteriologically confirmed + clinically diagnosed)

Treatment success rate for TB patients with bacteriologically confirmed TB (# & % )

Laboratories performing smear microscopy that show adequate performance on EQA (# & % )

Reporting units reporting no stock-outs of anti-TB drugs on the last day of the quarter (# & %)

Number of children < 5 in contact with TB patients who began IPT

Additional indicators that will apply to some grants

Number of TB cases (all forms) notified among high risk groups

Notified TB cases (all forms) contributed by non -NTP providers (# & %)

{specify if these providers are (a) private/non-governmental facilities (b) public sector such as general hospitals, social security, health insurance, educational institutions etc. or (c) community referrals}

MDR-TB

Number of cases of bacteriologically confirmed, drug resistant TB (RR-TB and/or MDR-TB) notified

Number of cases with bacteriologically confirmed, drug resistant TB (RR-TB and/or MDR-TB) that began second-line treatment

Number of presumptive cases of drug-resistant TB (RR-TB and/or MDR-TB) that began second-line treatment

DST laboratories showing adequate performance on External Quality Assurance (# & %)

TB/HIV

TB patients with documented HIV status at the time of TB diagnosis (# & %)

HIV-positiv e TB patients given anti-retroviral therapy during TB treatment (# & %)

People enrolled in HIV care who had their TB status assessed and recorded (# & %)

People newly enrolled in HIV care treated for latent TB infection (# & %)

M&E

Reporting units submitting timely reports according to national guidelines

DOTS based package Number of notified cases of bacteriologically confirmed TB Number of notified cases of all forms of TB (i.e. bacteriologically confirmed + clinically diagnosed) Treatment success rate for TB patients with bacteriologically confirmed TB (# & % ) Laboratories performing smear microscopy that show adequate performance on EQA (# & % ) Reporting units reporting no stock-outs of anti-TB drugs on the last day of the quarter (# & %) Number of children <5 in contact with TB patients who began IPT Number of TB cases (all forms) notified among high risk groups Notified TB cases (all forms) contributed by non-NTP providers (# & %)

MDR-TB Number of cases of bacteriologically confirmed, drug resistant TB (RR-TB and/or MDR-TB) notified Number of cases with bacteriologically confirmed, drug resistant TB (RR-TB and/or MDR-TB) that began second-

line treatment Number of presumptive cases of drug-resistant TB (RR-TB and/or MDR-TB) that began second-line treatment DST laboratories showing adequate performance on External Quality Assurance (# & %) TB/HIV TB patients with documented HIV status at the time of TB diagnosis (# & %) HIV-positive TB patients given anti-retroviral therapy during TB treatment (# & %) People enrolled in HIV care who had their TB status assessed and recorded (# & %) People newly enrolled in HIV care treated for latent TB infection (# & %) M&E Reporting units submitting timely reports according to national guidelines

Consultation Orientation on the NFM

Geneva, 9-11 July 2013

• For HSS, a separate modular template

should be used.

• To add more modules, applicants must

“copy & paste” the measurement

framework and budget below the existing

tables. These will be reflected in the

summary budget tab.

Attachment 2: Modular Template – the modules

2

26

Preparing for the New Funding

Model

27

5 areas for you to prepare for the new funding

model

Plan ahead

Strengthen national strategies

Involve key constituencies

Improve data

Ensure CCM and PR capacity

1

2

3

4

5

28

2nd

GAC

Reminder: new funding model cycle and timelines

Concept Note

2-3 months

Grant Making

1.5-3 months

Board

TRP

GAC

Key

funding

events

1

• Secretariat’s Grant

Approval Committee

sets budget ceiling

• TRP-approved funds

above ceiling are put

in queue in case new

funds are available

• Country team and country

finalize grant agreement

documents

- Workplan & budget

- Performance framework

- Procurement plan

• Secretariat

communicates

funding amounts to

countries

• The pool of

additional incentive

funding is also

available

Countries can apply anytime in 2014-2016

Grant funds can be for 3 years beyond grant signature in 2017 & beyond

Ongoing Country Dialogue

National

Strategic Plan

determined by

country

Grant

Implementation

3 years

29

Each country is asked to estimate when they plan to access funds Time for new funding model stages depends on context

2 months

1 month

1.5 months*

Country can move more rapidly because it has:

• Up-to-date and costed national strategic plan or

investment case with agreed priorities

• CCM is able to rapidly coordinate stakeholders

• PRs are well performing

2 months

1 month

2 months*

3 months

1 month

3 months*

NSP development

8 months

6 months

10 months

16 months

4 months

Concept note writing

TRP and GAC review

Grant making

Time from dialogue to 1st disbursement

Pre-CN development country dialogue

From Board approval to 1st disbursement

1 month

1 month

Country may need moderate amount of time to:

• Conduct country dialogue to agree on priorities and consult stakeholders

• But has well performing CCM and PRs

Country may need significant time to:

• Develop clear strategy or viable extension plan through grant period

• Strengthen capacity for PR

• Reach agreement with the CCM

1 month

Accele

rate

d

Avera

ge

Lo

ng

1

Note: TRP reviews will be scheduled to accommodate the most programs. If there is no TRP scheduled in the

month the Concept Note is submitted, the “TRP and GAC review” stage may take longer, up to 3 months

* This is the anticipated average scenario – it may take longer in some countries.

30

Timelines for the full roll-out are tight, with a number

of dependencies Timing will remain uncertain until the Replenishment and Board dates are set

Timelines and dependencies for the full roll-out

Fourth Replenishment

Conference outcome

Board/Committee

meetings & decisions

Allocations to

countries

Board/Committee

meetings & decisions 20

14

1

The Global Fund will

communicate as soon

as timing is clearer

Donors confirm their

financial support to

the Global Fund

31

preparing for the new funding model

Plan ahead



Improve data


1

2

3

4

5

32

Know the epidemic to target resources effectively Plan appropriate assessments and reviews to feed into NSPs and concept note

submission

• Joint assessment

of DQ & systems

• Identification of

key data gaps

• Quantification of

investment needs

• Strategic

investment in

data systems

• Review of

epidemiology &

impact for KAPs

at subnational

level

• Before the

development of a

Concept Note

and as part of

country dialogue

• Identifies data

limitations and

required actions

• Ambitious yet

realistic goals and

SMART objectives

• Prioritizes gaps for

funds available

• Costed plan

• Measurable

indicators, clear

sources of info and

means of

verification

• Joint reviews with

a particular focus

on epidemiological

impact & progress

• Recommendations

to inform a revision

or development of

new NSP

• Map programmatic

and financial gaps

Surveillance

Systems and Data

Quality assessment Epi analysis

Program

Review

National

Strategic Plan

(NSP)

Global Fund application

33

National strategic plans (NSPs):

The basis for Global Fund funding

National strategic plan Robust NSP

JANS, IHP+

or similar

assessment

Concept

Note

Identified

prioritized

programmatic

gaps

NSPs should be:

• developed through inclusive, multi-stakeholder

efforts

• aligned with international normative guidance,

national health sector strategies, and developed in

coordination across the three diseases

• Assessed through a credible, independent, multi-

stakeholder process that uses agreed frameworks

(e.g., Joint Assessment of National Strategies tool)

Before assessment

Secretariat supports the process by:

• encouraging governments to have

broad engagement with civil society

and Key Affected Populations (KAPs)

• participating in consultations at the

country level

• providing feedback on the

performance of Global Fund grants

Epi analysis

& program

review

34

The new funding model places increased focus

on NSPs

Concept

Note

Incentive funding:

Awarded to ambitious expressions of quality

demand based on robust national strategies and

high impact, well-performing programs

Indicative

funding

Above

indicative

Indicative funding:

The Global Fund funds activities aligned to

national priorities and identified needs

Robust NSP

2

A robust NSP provides a greater prospect of incentive funding

35

Today’s focus:


model

Plan ahead



Improve data


1

2

3

4

5

36

Involve key constituencies now so that concept note

development is smoother later

Inclusive country

dialogue

Plan for the timing of key

events

Get the right people

involved

Engage them throughout

national and Global Fund

processes

Ensure mechanisms are

in place for stakeholders

to provide input

A

B

What you can do now

Grants include activities

that address the needs

of key affected

populations to access

services

Country-ownership and

strategic investment

Desired outcomes

C

D

3

37

Develop an engagement plan Some examples

Who should be

involved

In what should

they be involved

How to engage

them

When key events

will occur

Government

Civil society

Technical partners

Other funders

Key affected

populations

People living with

the disease

National strategic

plan development

Epi analysis &

program reviews

Concept note

writing

Country dialogue

Grant making

Through caucuses

In safe spaces

Through lead

representative

Draft concept note

sent for TRP

review

Date when new

funds are needed

Concept note

submission (target

date)

At national

conferences

In writing group

Major meetings

and consultations

TRP / GAC input

received

3

38

Tailor participation to reflect the context and epidemic Consider whether input from these groups is necessary for an effective response

In-country organizations

CCM members

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Gender/Women

Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior,

Parliamentary committee on health

National disease bodies, e.g., national AIDS

council

National human rights institutions

Civil society, e.g., Aids Alliance, faith-based

organizations, legal and human rights groups

Other funders and

implementers PEPFAR,, USAID, CDC

EU members (e.g., DfiD, GIZ, French)

AusAid

HIVOS

European Commission, staff at embassy

human rights/development programs

Private foundations, such as Levi Strauss

Foundation, Global Fund for Women,

depending on context

Non-public sector implementers (e.g., FBOs)

World Bank

Global technical partners

Stop TB partnership

WHO

UNDP, OHCHR, UNFPA, ILO, UNHCR,

UNICEF, depending on country context

Open Society Foundations

Regional and international networks of KAPs

Regional and international human rights groups

TB

People who work in settings that facilitate TB

transmission

Prisoners

Migrants

Refugees

Indigenous peoples

People living with HIV

People who use drugs

Other, such as labor unions, depending on

country context

3

39


model

Plan ahead



Improve data


1

2

3

4

5

40

A country’s funding amount comes from an allocation

formula adjusted for qualitative factors

Qualitative factors Allocation formula

Disease burden

Income level

External financing

Minimum required

level

Absorptive capacity

For discussion today

Global Fund

funding for country

1

Grant performance

2

Impact 3

Willingness to pay

4

Increasing rates of

infection

3

4

Parameters of allocation

formula are still being decided

by Global Fund's Strategy

Committee

Risk

41

Ensure that data inputs are up-to-date

Disease burden Grant performance Impact and increasing

rates of infection

Willingness to pay

(WTP)

Burden of TB in-country,

measured by morbidity Past Global Fund grant

performance over the

past 2 years

Achievement of impact

against TB: increasing

rates of TB/HIV or MDR-

TB infection;

Government contribution

above current levels and

minimum thresholds that

supports the national

disease program

1 2 3 4

Allocation formula Qualitative factors

4

Make sure disease burden

estimates provided by

WHO are accurate

Ensure that PRs submit

PU/DRs in timely fashion

Share data with FPMs that

show evidence of impact

or increasing rates of

infection

Provide FPM with

information to create

baseline for government

contribution

What countries can do:

42

Review disease burden data with WHO Data from technical partners is the sole source of disease burden

4

Countries need to

engage now with

WHO to ensure data

is up-to-date and

reflected in WHO

reports

Global Fund

eligibility

New funding

model allocation

formula

Global Fund uses

for key processes

Countries provide data

to WHO/UNAIDS

Data aggregated

by technical

partners

Official disease

burden estimates are

the basis of key

Global Fund

processes...

IMPORTANT NOTE

• Global Fund will use the data provided by WHO/UNAIDS

• Any changes must be agreed by countries with technical partners

TB Disease Score = (1*HIV neg. TB incident cases) + (8*estimated MDR-TB incidence) + (1.2*HIV

pos. TB incident cases) + (0.1 * 50% of estimated no of people with known HIV pos. status)

43

Provide information about impact to the Global Fund

• Not all countries will have all data –

provide what exists in country

• Share documents with Global Fund

country team

• If increasing rates of infection in a

subpopulation drive the epidemic,

provide documents to show it

Suggested documents:

• Recent surveillance reports

• National health sector and/or disease program

reports

• Annual demographic report or national

statistical yearbook

• Survey reports

• Program budget review

• Inventory of health workforce and facilities

• National and program-specific DQA reports

• NSPs (health sector and/or disease)

• National M&E plans

• Others you believe are relevant

4

44

Countries must first meet the Global Fund's counterpart financing (CPF) requirements

• Low income (LI): 5%

• Lower-lower-middle income (LLMI): 20%

• Upper-lower-middle income (ULMI): 40%

• Upper-middle income (UMI): 60%

Countries that meet CPF are eligible for an increase to their allocation based on additional

government investment that is...

Compliance will be monitored annually

• Funds will be adjusted in cases of non-compliance

• Ensure grant contains funds for national tracking methods if country has reporting

problems

1

2

3

• Above current levels of government spending

• Committed to strategic areas of national disease program agreed during country dialogue

• Tracked through budgets or other official documents

• Embedded in grant agreements

• Not less than planned government spending commitments for next phase

How it works: willingness to pay bonus 4

45

Provide government financing data to the

Secretariat

4

Each Disease Program:

• Funding need for the next 3 years

• Allocation of government and

external resources for current fiscal

year

• Expenditure of government and

external resources for past 2 years

• Government and external resources

committed for the next 3 years

Health Sector:

• Current year allocation, spending in

past 2 years and commitments for

next 3 years from government

resources

Government resources

include:

• Budget Support from

Government Revenues

• Loans

• Debt Relief Allocations

• Social Security Spending

• Funds contributed by

Earmarked Taxation

If needed, an additional

request will be sent to the

CCM to provide the following:

• Completed ‘Counterpart

Financing and Gap

Analysis Template’

• Supporting documentation

per guidance provided

If data availability is an issue,

use savings from grant

funds now to support a

expenditure tracking exercise

to provide data in CN

46

Plan ahead



Improve data


1

2

3

4

5

47

All CCM will be expected to meet minimum

standards by January 2015

Minimum Standards will be compulsory at grant signing as of Jan 1, 2015

Minimum Standards express the Global Fund’s expectations of CCM

performance

Review CCM

performance

against the

Minimum

Standards to

determine TA

needs

Conduct an

annual self-

assessment

against the

CCM Minimum

Standards

Choose a TA

provider to

support the

assessment

and develop an

action plan

Implement the

action plan to

meet the

minimum

standards

Minimum

Standards

enforced at

grant signing as

of Jan. 1, 2015

2014 Benchmarking January 1, 2015

5

2013

48

Review CCM against minimum standards Minimum requirements for CCM eligibility

1

2

3

4

5

6 Develop, publish and follow a policy to manage conflict of interest that

applies to all CCM members, across all CCM functions

Ensure representation of non-governmental members through

transparent and documented processes

Document the representation of affected communities

Overseeing program implementation and having an oversight

plan

Open and transparent PR selection process

Transparent and inclusive concept note development process

monitored

ongoing

basis

5

assessed

at CN

submission

49

Conclusion: prepare now for the NFM

• Assess PRs against minimum standards and take steps to address implementation risks

• Ensure compliance with CCM Eligibility Requirements and minimum standards

• Conduct national program reviews/assessments to determine strengths and weaknesses

• Prioritize programmatic gaps for which Global Fund funding will be requested

• Ensure costed and prioritized national strategic plan (NSP) or extension is valid through

expected Global Fund grant implementation period

• Align on country disease burden data with UNAIDS and WHO as this is the basis of the

funding allocation and eligibility

• Provide the Global Fund with data on impact and performance, and counterpart financing

• Strengthen epidemiological information, especially at subnational level and for key affected

populations, to better target limited resources for impact

• Develop an engagement plan, including how to involve KAPs)and civil society

• Work with technical assistance funders/ providers to strengthen KAP and civil society

capacity

• Involve other donors and implementers in discussions to ensure harmonization of funding

and activities

• Identify when funds are needed for each disease

• Estimate how long the application process will take

• Plan key milestones, like program review, over coming months

Strengthen

national

strategies

Involve

key

constituencies

Improve

data

Ensure CCM

and PR

capacity

Plan ahead 1

2

3

4

5

the new funding model - whofor early applicants, this is the 2014-2016 amount. for interim...

Documents