The political economy of financing traditional vaccines and vitamin A supplements in six African countries.

Vaccines and vitamin A supplementation (VAS) are financed by donors in several countries, indicating that challenges remain with achieving sustainable government financing of these critical health commodities. This qualitative study aimed to explore political economy variables of actors' interests, roles, power and commitment to ensure government financing of vaccines and VAS. A total of 77 interviews were conducted in Burundi, Comoros, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Governments and development partners had similar interests. Donor commitment to vaccines and VAS was sometimes dependent on the priorities and political situation of the donor country. Governments' commitment to financing vaccines was demonstrated through policy measures, such as enactment of immunization laws. Explicit government financial commitment to VAS was absent in all six countries. Some development partners were able to influence governments directly via allocation of health funding while others influenced indirectly through coordination, consolidation and networks. Government power was exercised through multiple systemic and individual processes, including hierarchy, bureaucracy in governance and budgetary process, proactiveness of Ministry of Health officials in engaging with Ministry of Finance, and control over resources. Enablers that were likely to increase government commitment to financing vaccines and VAS included emerging reforms, attention to the voice of citizens and improvements in the domestic economy that in turn increased government revenues. Barriers identified were political instability, health sector inefficiencies, overly complicated bureaucracy, frequent changes of health sector leadership and non-health competing needs. Country governments were aware of their role in financing vaccines, but only a few had made tangible efforts to increase government financing. Discussions on government financing of VAS were absent. Development partners continue to influence government health commodity financing decisions. The political economy environment and contextual factors work together to facilitate or impede domestic financing.

Budget line items for immunization in 33 African countries.

When seeking to ensure financial sustainability of a health programme, existence of a line item in the Ministry of Health (MOH) budget is often seen as an essential, first step. We used immunization as a reference point for cross-country comparison of budgeting methods in Sub-Saharan African countries. Study objectives were to (1) verify the number and types of budget line items for immunization services, (2) compare budget execution with budgeted amounts and (3) compare values with annual immunization expenditures reported to WHO and UNICEF. MOH budgets for 2016 and/or 2017 were obtained from 33 countries. Despite repeated attempts, budgets could not be retrieved from five countries (Chad, Eritrea, Guinea Bissau, Somalia and South Sudan), and we were only able to gather budget execution from eight countries. The number of immunization line items ranged between 0 and 42, with a median of eight. Immunization donor funding was included in 10 budgets. Differences between budgeted amounts and expenditures reported to WHO and UNICEF were greater than 50% in 66% of countries. Immunization budgets per child in the birth cohort ranged from US$1.37 (Democratic Republic of Congo) to US$67.51 (Central African Republic), with an average of US$10.05. Out of the total Government health budget, immunization comprised between 0.04% (Madagascar) and 5.67% (Benin), with an average of 1.98% across the countries, when excluding on-budget donor funds. It was challenging to obtain MOH budgets in many countries and it was largely impossible to access budget execution reports, preventing us from assessing budget credibility. Large differences between budgets and expenditures reported to WHO and UNICEF are likely due to inconsistent interpretations of reporting requirements, diverse approaches to reporting donor funds, challenges in extracting the relevant information from public financial management systems and broader issues of public financial management capacity in MOH staff.