Cargando…

The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going?

BACKGROUND: In March 2009, the Task Force for Innovative International Financing for Health Systems recommended "a health systems funding platform for the Global Fund, GAVI Alliance, the World Bank and others to coordinate, mobilize, streamline and channel the flow of existing and new internati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hill, Peter S, Vermeiren, Peter, Miti, Katabaro, Ooms, Gorik, Van Damme, Wim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117689/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21595940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-7-16
_version_ 1782206352861429760
author Hill, Peter S
Vermeiren, Peter
Miti, Katabaro
Ooms, Gorik
Van Damme, Wim
author_facet Hill, Peter S
Vermeiren, Peter
Miti, Katabaro
Ooms, Gorik
Van Damme, Wim
author_sort Hill, Peter S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In March 2009, the Task Force for Innovative International Financing for Health Systems recommended "a health systems funding platform for the Global Fund, GAVI Alliance, the World Bank and others to coordinate, mobilize, streamline and channel the flow of existing and new international resources to support national health strategies." Momentum to establish the Health Systems Funding Platform was swift, with the World Bank convening a Technical Workshop on Health Systems Strengthening (HSS), and serial meetings organized to progress the agenda. Despite its potential significance, there has been little comment in peer-reviewed literature, though some disquiet in the international development community around the scope of the Platform and the capacity of the partners, which appears disproportionate to the available information. METHODS: This case study uses documentary analysis, participant observation and 24 in-depth interviews to examine the processes of development and key issues raised by the Platform. RESULTS: The findings show a fluid and volatile process, with debate over whether ongoing engagement in HSS by Global Fund and GAVI represents a dilution of organizational focus, risking ongoing support, or a paradigm shift that facilitates the achievement of targeted objectives, builds systems capacity, and will attract additional resources. Uncertainty in the development of the Platform reflects the flexibility of the recently formed global health initiatives, and the instability of donor commitments, particularly in the current financial climate. But implicit in the conflict is tension between key global stakeholders over defining and ownership of the health systems agenda. CONCLUSIONS: The tensions appear to have been resolved through a focus on national planning, applying International Health Partnership principles, though the global financial crisis and key personnel changes may yet alter outcomes. Despite its dynamic evolution, the Platform may offer an incremental path towards increasing integration around health systems, that has not been previously possible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3117689
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31176892011-06-18 The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going? Hill, Peter S Vermeiren, Peter Miti, Katabaro Ooms, Gorik Van Damme, Wim Global Health Research BACKGROUND: In March 2009, the Task Force for Innovative International Financing for Health Systems recommended "a health systems funding platform for the Global Fund, GAVI Alliance, the World Bank and others to coordinate, mobilize, streamline and channel the flow of existing and new international resources to support national health strategies." Momentum to establish the Health Systems Funding Platform was swift, with the World Bank convening a Technical Workshop on Health Systems Strengthening (HSS), and serial meetings organized to progress the agenda. Despite its potential significance, there has been little comment in peer-reviewed literature, though some disquiet in the international development community around the scope of the Platform and the capacity of the partners, which appears disproportionate to the available information. METHODS: This case study uses documentary analysis, participant observation and 24 in-depth interviews to examine the processes of development and key issues raised by the Platform. RESULTS: The findings show a fluid and volatile process, with debate over whether ongoing engagement in HSS by Global Fund and GAVI represents a dilution of organizational focus, risking ongoing support, or a paradigm shift that facilitates the achievement of targeted objectives, builds systems capacity, and will attract additional resources. Uncertainty in the development of the Platform reflects the flexibility of the recently formed global health initiatives, and the instability of donor commitments, particularly in the current financial climate. But implicit in the conflict is tension between key global stakeholders over defining and ownership of the health systems agenda. CONCLUSIONS: The tensions appear to have been resolved through a focus on national planning, applying International Health Partnership principles, though the global financial crisis and key personnel changes may yet alter outcomes. Despite its dynamic evolution, the Platform may offer an incremental path towards increasing integration around health systems, that has not been previously possible. BioMed Central 2011-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3117689/ /pubmed/21595940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-7-16 Text en Copyright ©2011 Hill et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Hill, Peter S
Vermeiren, Peter
Miti, Katabaro
Ooms, Gorik
Van Damme, Wim
The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going?
title The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going?
title_full The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going?
title_fullStr The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going?
title_full_unstemmed The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going?
title_short The Health Systems Funding Platform: Is this where we thought we were going?
title_sort health systems funding platform: is this where we thought we were going?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117689/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21595940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-7-16
work_keys_str_mv AT hillpeters thehealthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT vermeirenpeter thehealthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT mitikatabaro thehealthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT oomsgorik thehealthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT vandammewim thehealthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT hillpeters healthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT vermeirenpeter healthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT mitikatabaro healthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT oomsgorik healthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing
AT vandammewim healthsystemsfundingplatformisthiswherewethoughtweweregoing