Vaccine procurement in the Middle East and North Africa region: Challenges and ways of improving program efficiency and fiscal space.

Improving vaccine procurement performance has been a priority concern of national health authorities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region for years particularly in terms of its role in accessing new vaccines and assuring a steady supply of quality vaccines at affordable prices. This article reviews the vaccine procurement mechanisms in the MENA region; analyzes the factors and drivers affecting demand for and supply of vaccines; discusses the main challenges; and suggests measures which can increase efficiency gains and generate the budgetary room to introduce life-saving vaccines. Based on in-depth analysis of available data and interviews with key informants at the regional and country level, this paper explains why most of the current strategies do not sufficiently recognize the specific characteristics of vaccine markets and best practices in procurement given these markets. The paper suggests potential efficiency gains for governments and global partners from pooling demand and moving from transaction-based purchasing to strategic purchasing in order to strengthen immunization services and introduce more life-saving vaccines.

Immunisation financing and programme performance in the Middle East and North Africa, 2010 to 2017.

Immunisation is a cornerstone to primary health care and is an exceptionally good value. The 14 low-income and middle-income countries in the Middle East and North Africa region make up 88% of the region's population and 92% of its births. Many of these countries have maintained high immunisation coverage even during periods of low or negative economic growth. However, coverage has sharply deteriorated in countries directly impacted by conflict and political unrest. Approximately 1.3 million children were not completely vaccinated in 2017, as measured by third dose of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine. Most of the countries have been slow to adopt the newer, more expensive life-saving vaccines mainly because of financial constraints and the socioeconomic context. Apart from the three countries that have had long-standing assistance from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, most countries have not benefited appreciably from donor and partner activities in supporting their health sector and in achieving their national and subnational immunisation targets. Looking forward, development partners will have an important role in helping reconstruct health systems in conflict-affected countries. They can also help with generating evidence and strategic advocacy for high-priority and cost-effective services, including immunisation. Governments and ministries of health would ensure important benefits to their populations by investing further in their immunisation programmes. Where possible, the health system can create and expand fiscal space from efficiency gains in harmonising vaccine procurement mechanisms and service integration; broader revenue generation from economic growth; and reallocation of government budgets to health, and from within health, to immunization.

A quantitative analysis of sources of changes in government expenditures on health, 2000 to 2015: what can we learn from experience to date?

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) requires increased domestic financing of health by low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs). It is critical to understand how much governments have devoted to health from domestic sources and how much growth might be realistic over time. Methods: Using data from WHO's Global Health Expenditure Database, we examined how the composition of current health expenditure changed by financing source and the sources of growth in health expenditures from 2000-2015 across different income groups. We disaggregated how much growth in government expenditures on health from domestic sources was due to economic growth, growth in government spending as a share of GDP, and reallocations in government expenditures towards health. Results: Lower MICs (LMICs) and upper MICs (UMICs), as a group, saw a significant reduction in out-of-pocket expenditures and a significant growth in government expenditures on health from domestic sources as a share of current health expenditures over the period. This trend indicates likely progress in the pathway to UHC. For LICs, these trends were more muted. Growth in government expenditure on health from domestic sources was driven primarily by economic growth in LICs, LMICs, and UMICs. Growth in government expenditure on health due to increased government spending as a share of GDP was high in UMICs. For the high-income country group, where economic growth was relatively slower and government spending was already high with strong tax bases, the largest driver of growth in government expenditure on health from domestic sources was reallocation of the government budget towards health. Conclusions: Dialogue on domestic resource mobilization needs to emphasize overall economic growth and growth in the government spending as a share of GDP as well as the share of health in the government budget.

Transforming Global Health by Improving the Science of Scale-Up.

In its report Global Health 2035, the Commission on Investing in Health proposed that health investments can reduce mortality in nearly all low- and middle-income countries to very low levels, thereby averting 10 million deaths per year from 2035 onward. Many of these gains could be achieved through scale-up of existing technologies and health services. A key instrument to close this gap is policy and implementation research (PIR) that aims to produce generalizable evidence on what works to implement successful interventions at scale. Rigorously designed PIR promotes global learning and local accountability. Much greater national and global investments in PIR capacity will be required to enable the scaling of effective approaches and to prevent the recycling of failed ideas. Sample questions for the PIR research agenda include how to close the gap in the delivery of essential services to the poor, which population interventions for non-communicable diseases are most applicable in different contexts, and how to engage non-state actors in equitable provision of health services in the context of universal health coverage.

Gavi's Transition Policy: Moving From Development Assistance To Domestic Financing Of Immunization Programs.

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, was created in 2000 to accelerate the introduction of new and underused vaccines in lower-income countries. The period 2000-15 was marked by the rapid uptake of new vaccines in more than seventy countries eligible for Gavi support. To stay focused on the poorest countries, Gavi's support phases out after countries' gross national income per capita surpasses a set threshold, which requires governments to assume responsibility for the continued financing of vaccines introduced with Gavi support. Gavi's funding will end in the period 2016-20 for nineteen countries that have exceeded the eligibility threshold. To avoid disrupting lifesaving immunization programs and to ensure the long-term sustainable impact of Gavi's investments, it is vital that governments succeed in transitioning from development assistance to domestic financing of immunization programs. This article discusses some of the challenges facing countries currently transitioning out of Gavi support, how Gavi's policies have evolved to help manage the risks involved in this process, and the lessons learned from this experience.

[Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation]. / Salud global 2035: un mundo convergiendo en el lapso de una generación.

Prompted by the 20th anniversary of the 1993 World Development Report, a Lancet Commission revisited the case for investment in health and developed a new investment framework to achieve dramatic health gains by 2035. The Commission's report has four key messages, each accompanied by opportunities for action by national governments of low-income and middle-income countries and by the international community. First, there is an enormous economic payoff from investing in health. The impressive returns make a strong case for both increased domestic financing of health and for allocating a higher proportion of official development assistance to development of health. Second, modeling by the Commission found that a "grand convergence" in health is achievable by 2035-that is, a reduction in infectious, maternal, and child mortality down to universally low levels. Convergence would require aggressive scale up of existing and new health tools, and it could mostly be financed from the expected economic growth of low- and middle-income countries. The international community can best support convergence by funding the development and delivery of new health technologies and by curbing antibiotic resistance. Third, fiscal policies -such as taxation of tobacco and alcohol- are a powerful and underused lever that governments can use to curb non-communicable diseases and injuries while also raising revenue for health. International action on NCDs and injuries should focus on providing technical assistance on fiscal policies, regional cooperation on tobacco, and funding policy and implementation research on scaling-up of interventions to tackle these conditions. Fourth, progressive universalism, a pathway to universal health coverage (UHC) that includes the poor from the outset, is an efficient way to achieve health and financial risk protection. For national governments, progressive universalism would yield high health gains per dollar spent and poor people would gain the most in terms of health and financial protection. The international community can best support countries to implement progressive UHC by financing policy and implementation research, such as on the mechanics of designing and implementing evolution of the benefits package as the resource envelope for public finance grows.

Salud global 2035: un mundo convergiendo en el lapso de una generación / Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation

Con motivo del 20º aniversario del Informe sobre el Desarrollo Mundial 1993, una Comisión de la revista The Lancet reconsideró el argumento a favor de la inversión en salud y desarrolló un nuevo marco de inversión para lograr mejoras dramáticas en materia de salud para el año 2035. El informe de la Comisión contiene cuatro mensajes clave, cada uno acompañado de oportunidades para los gobiernos nacionales de países de ingresos bajos y medios y para la comunidad internacional. En primer lugar, invertir en salud acarrea enormes rendimientos económicos. Las impresionantes ganancias son un fuerte argumento a favor de un aumento en el financiamiento nacional de la salud y de asignar una mayor proporción de la asistencia oficial al desarrollo de la salud. En segundo lugar, en el modelo creado por la Comisión se encontró que es posible lograr para el año 2035 una "gran convergencia" en salud, consistente en la reducción de las tasas de mortalidad materna, infantil y por infecciones a niveles universalmente bajos. Tal convergencia requeriría la ampliación de las herramientas de salud existentes y un incremento agresivo de nuevas herramientas, y podría ser financiada en su mayor parte con recursos derivados del crecimiento económico esperado de los países de ingresos bajos y medios. La mejor manera en que la comunidad internacional puede apoyar la convergencia es financiando el desarrollo y suministro de nuevas tecnologías de salud, y frenando la resistencia a los antibióticos. En tercer lugar, las políticas fiscales -tales como los impuestos al tabaco y al alcohol- son una palanca poderosa y subutilizada que los gobiernos pueden emplear para detener el avance de las enfermedades no transmisibles (ENT) y las lesiones, a la vez que elevan los ingresos públicos para la salud. La acción internacional sobre las ENT y lesiones debería enfocarse en proporcionar asistencia técnica sobre políticas fiscales, en cooperación regional para el combate al tabaquismo y en financiar investigación sobre políticas e implementación para ampliar las intervenciones que enfrenten estos problemas. En cuarto lugar, la universalización progresiva -una vía hacia la cobertura universal de salud (CUS) que incluya desde el comienzo a los pobres- es una manera eficiente de lograr la protección a la salud contra riesgos financieros. Para los gobiernos nacionales, la universalización progresiva produciría elevadas ganancias en salud por cada dólar que se gaste en ésta, y los pobres serían quienes más ganarían en términos tanto de salud como de protección financiera. La mejor manera en que la comunidad internacional puede brindar apoyo a los países para implementar una CUS progresiva es financiando la investigación sobre políticas e implementación, por ejemplo, sobre la mecánica del diseño e instrumentación de la evolución del paquete de beneficios conforme crezca el presupuesto para las finanzas públicas.

Prompted by the 20th anniversary of the 1993 World Development Report, a Lancet Commission revisited the case for investment in health and developed a new investment framework to achieve dramatic health gains by 2035. The Commission's report has four key messages, each accompanied by opportunities for action by national governments of low-income and middle-income countries and by the international community. First, there is an enormous economic payoff from investing in health. The impressive returns make a strong case for both increased domestic financing of health and for allocating a higher proportion of official development assistance to development of health. Second, modeling by the Commission found that a "grand convergence" in health is achievable by 2035-that is, a reduction in infectious, maternal, and child mortality down to universally low levels. Convergence would require aggressive scale up of existing and new health tools, and it could mostly be financed from the expected economic growth of low- and middle-income countries. The international community can best support convergence by funding the development and delivery of new health technologies and by curbing antibiotic resistance. Third, fiscal policies -such as taxation of tobacco and alcohol- are a powerful and underused lever that governments can use to curb non-communicable diseases and injuries while also raising revenue for health. International action on NCDs and injuries should focus on providing technical assistance on fiscal policies, regional cooperation on tobacco, and funding policy and implementation research on scaling-up of interventions to tackle these conditions. Fourth, progressive universalism, a pathway to universal health coverage (UHC) that includes the poor from the outset, is an efficient way to achieve health and financial risk protection. For national governments, progressive universalism would yield high health gains per dollar spent and poor people would gain the most in terms of health and financial protection. The international community can best support countries to implement progressive UHC by financing policy and implementation research, such as on the mechanics of designing and implementing evolution of the benefits package as the resource envelope for public finance grows.

Overcoming challenges to sustainable immunization financing: early experiences from GAVI graduating countries.

Over the 5-year period ending in 2018, 16 countries with a combined birth cohort of over 6 million infants requiring life-saving immunizations are scheduled to transition (graduate) from outside financial and technical support for a number of their essential vaccines. This support has been provided over the past decade by the GAVI Alliance. Will these 16 countries be able to continue to sustain these vaccination efforts? To address this issue, GAVI and its partners are supporting transition planning, entailing country assessments of readiness to graduate and intensive dialogue with national officials to ensure a smooth transition process. This approach was piloted in Bhutan, Republic of Congo, Georgia, Moldova and Mongolia in 2012. The pilot showed that graduating countries are highly heterogeneous in their capacity to assume responsibility for their immunization programmes. Although all possess certain strengths, each country displayed weaknesses in some of the following areas: budgeting for vaccine purchase, national procurement practices, performance of national regulatory agencies, and technical capacity for vaccine planning and advocacy. The 2012 pilot experience further demonstrated the value of transition planning processes and tools. As a result, GAVI has decided to continue with transition planning in 2013 and beyond. As the graduation process advances, GAVI and graduating countries should continue to contribute to global collective thinking about how developing countries can successfully end their dependence on donor aid and achieve self-sufficiency.

An analysis of how the GAVI alliance and low- and middle-income countries can share costs of new vaccines.

Immunization is one of the "best buys" in global health. However, for the poorest countries, even modest expenditures may be out of reach. The GAVI Alliance is a public-private partnership created to help the poorest countries introduce new vaccines. Since 2008 GAVI has required that countries cover a share of the cost of vaccines introduced with GAVI support. To determine how much countries can contribute to the cost of vaccines--without displacing spending on other essential programs--we analyzed their fiscal capacity to contribute to the purchase of vaccines over the coming decade. For low-income countries, external financing will be required to purchase vaccines supported by GAVI, so co-financing needs to be modest. Relatively better-off "intermediate" countries could support initially modest but gradually increasing co-financing levels. The countries soon to graduate from GAVI can generally afford to follow a rapid path to self-sufficiency. Co-financing for these countries needs to ramp up so that national budgets fully cover the costs of the new generation of vaccines once GAVI support ends.

Incentives and provider payment methods

The mode of payment creates powerful incentives affecting provider behavior and the efficiency, equity and quality outcomes of health finance reforms. This article examines provider incentives as well as administrative costs, and institutional conditions for successful implementation associated with provider payment alternatives. The alternatives considered are budget reforms, capitation, fee-for-service, and case-based reimbursement. We conclude that competition, whether through a regulated private sector or within a public system, has the potential to improve the performance of any payment method. All methods generate both adverse and beneficial incentives. Systems with mixed forms of provider payment can provide tradeoffs to offset the disadvantages of individual modes. Low-income countries should avoid complex payment systems requiring higher levels of institutional development.(AU)