Uganda's increasing dependence on development partner's support for immunization - a five year resource tracking study (2012 - 2016).

BACKGROUND: In Uganda, there are persistent weaknesses in obtaining accurate, reliable and complete data on local and external investments in immunization to guide planning, financing, and resource mobilization. This study aimed to measure and describe the financial envelope for immunization from 2012 to 2016 and analyze expenditures at sub-national level. METHODS: The Systems of Health Accounts (SHA) 2011 methodology was used to quantify and map the resource envelope for immunization. Data was collected at national and sub-national levels from public and external sources of immunization. Data were coded, categorized and disaggregated by expenditure on immunization activities using the SHA 2011. RESULTS: Over the five-year period, funding for immunization increased fourfold from US$20.4 million in 2012 to US$ 85.6 million in 2016. The Ugandan government was the main contributor (55%) to immunization resources from 2012 to 2014 however, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance contributed the majority (59%) of the resources to immunization in 2015 and 2016. Majority (66%) of the funds were managed by the National Medical Stores. Over the five-year period, 80% of the funds allocated to immunization activities were spent on facility based routine immunization (expenditure on human resources and outreaches). At sub-national level, districts allocated 15% of their total annual resources to immunization to support supervision of lower health facilities and distribution of vaccines. Health facilities spent 5.5% of their total annual resources on immunization to support outreaches. CONCLUSION: Development partner support has aided the improvement of vaccine coverage and increased access to vaccines however, there is an increasing dependence on this support for a critical national program raising sustainability concerns alongside other challenges like being off-budget and unpredictable. To ensure financial sustainability, there is need to operationalize the immunization fund, advocate and mobilize additional resources for immunization from the Government of Uganda and the private sector, increase the reliability of resources for immunization as well as leverage on health financing reforms like the National Health Insurance.

Who pays for and who benefits from health care services in Uganda?

BACKGROUND: Equity in health care entails payment for health services according to the capacity to pay and the receipt of benefits according to need. In Uganda, as in many African countries, although equity is extolled in government policy documents, not much is known about who pays for, and who benefits from, health services. This paper assesses both equity in the financing and distribution of health care benefits in Uganda. METHODS: Data are drawn from the most recent nationally representative Uganda National Household Survey 2009/10. Equity in health financing is assessed considering the main domestic health financing sources (i.e., taxes and direct out-of-pocket payments). This is achieved using bar charts and standard concentration and Kakwani indices. Benefit incidence analysis is used to assess the distribution of health services for both public and non-public providers across socio-economic groups and the need for care. Need is assessed using limitations in functional ability while socioeconomic groups are created using per adult equivalent consumption expenditure. RESULTS: Overall, health financing in Uganda is marginally progressive; the rich pay more as a proportion of their income than the poor. The various taxes are more progressive than out-of-pocket payments (e.g., the Kakwani index of personal income tax is 0.195 compared with 0.064 for out-of-pocket payments). However, taxes are a much smaller proportion of total health sector financing compared with out-of-pocket payments. The distribution of total health sector services benefitsis pro-rich. The richest quintile receives 19.2% of total benefits compared to the 17.9% received by the poorest quintile. The rich also receive a much higher share of benefits relative to their need. Benefits from public health units are pro-poor while hospital based care, in both public and non-public sectors are pro-rich. CONCLUSION: There is a renewed interest in ensuring equity in the financing and use of health services. Based on the results in this paper, it would seem that in order to safeguard such equity, there is a need for policy that focuses on addressing the health needs of the poor while continuing to ensure that the burden of financing health services does not rest disproportionately on the poor.

Mapping financial flows for immunisation in Uganda 2009/10 and 2010/11: New insights for methodologies and policy.

BACKGROUND: The Global Vaccine Action Plan highlights the need for immunisation programmes to have sustainable access to predictable funding. A good understanding of current and future funding needs, commitments, and gaps is required to enhance planning, improve resource allocation and mobilisation, and to avoid funding bottlenecks, as well as to ensure that co-funding arrangements are appropriate. This study aimed to map the resource envelope and flows for immunisation in Uganda in 2009/10 and 2010/11. METHODS: To assess costs and financing of immunisation, the study applied a common methodology as part of the multi-country Expanded Program on Immunisation Costing (EPIC) study (Brenzel et al., 2015). The financial mapping developed a customised extension of the System of Health Accounts (SHA) codes to explore immunisation financing in detail. Data were collected from government and external sources. The mapping was able to assess financing more comprehensively than many studies, and the simultaneous costing of routine immunisation collected detailed data about human resources costs. RESULTS: The Ugandan government contributed 56% and 42% of routine immunisation funds in 2009/10 and 2010/11, respectively, higher than previously estimated, and managed up to 90% of funds. Direct delivery of services used 93% of the immunisation financial resources in 2010/11, while the above service delivery costs were small (7%). Vaccines and supplies (41%) and salaries (38%) absorbed most funding. There were differences in the key cost categories between actual resource flows and the estimates from the comprehensive multi-year plan (cMYP). CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight that governments and partners need to improve systems to routinely track immunisation financing flows for enhanced accountability, performance, and sustainability. The modified SHA coding allowed financing to be mapped to specific immunisation activities, and could be used for standardised, resource tracking compatible with National Health Accounts (NHA). Recommendations are made for refining routine resource mapping approaches.