Upload
sabinvaccine
View
372
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From paternalism to country ownership of national immunization
programs
Mike McQuestion, MPH, PhDSabin Vaccine Institute
World Vaccine Congress 2012Gaylord National Convention Center
Washington DC, USA10 April 2012
Outline
• Sabin Sustainable Immunization Financing Program
• Two logics: Immunization as a public good and as a driver of development
• Recent immunization financing trends
• Pathways to country ownership Institutional innovationsCollective action and social learning
Sabin SIF Program
• Six-year program, (2008-2013), funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Fifteen pilot countries chosen in consultation with GAVI and partners (WHO, UNICEF, World Bank), three more being added in 2012 with 2nd grant (GAVI)
• Five Senior Program Officers based in Africa, Asia backed by three Washington, DC-based Sabin staff
Sabin SIF Program• Periodic parliamentary briefings, targeted peer
exchanges of potential innovators• Legislation crafting workshops (Asia,
francophone Africa, anglophone Africa)• Second SIF Colloquium in 2013• Quarterly newsletter Summary Digest• Innovation: Rather than providing funding or
technical assistance, the SIF Program facilitates advocacy work, collective action
Immunization as public good
• Public (collective) good (def): “The achievement of a common goal, or satisfaction of a common interest”
(Mancur Olson 1965)• If the public good is produced, all group
members (citizens) will be better off than if it is not produced (Pareto superiority)
• Examples of public goods: A lighthouse, an army, a public education system
Immunization as public good
• Three characteristics of a public goodUnattainable individually: it can only be
provided collectivelyJointness of supply: available to everyone if
available to anyoneNon-excludability: cannot be feasibly withheld
from any group member
• Immunization (herd immunity) is among the first public goods governments provide
• A national immunization program is a set of well managed expert systems able to control morbidity and mortality by continuously providing state-of-the-art antigens to heterogeneous, often hard to reach populations
• Current investment: ~ US$40/infant
• A considerable accomplishment, particularly in a poor country
Immunization as development driver
Immunization as development driver
• Besides saving lives, immunization programs generate spillover effectsForegone curative costsIncreased labor force productivity (Bloom,
Canning Weston 1995)Political dividendsInstitutional capacity building
• By this logic, immunization is a highly cost-effective driver of development
Dependency
• To reap these dividends a country must own its immunization programSustainable financingTechnical expertise
• Most countries are far from this point• They depend inordinately on external
partners • This dependency short circuits true,
endogenous development processes
Dependency
• In the current, dependent equilibriumWork is done through patron-client
relationships, not institutional engagementTechnical decisions such as new vaccine
introduction are based on external expertiseExternal financing dominates and is generally
off-budgetGovernments underinvest (substitution effect)Public does not credit government
Countries underinvesting given growing economies
Countries could finance immunization in medium term
Rank 2006 US$ 2007 US$ 2008 US$ 2009 US$ 2010 US$
1 Sri Lanka 24 Sri Lanka 26 Cameroon 21 Senegal 56 Ethiopia 172 Nigeria 17 Cameroon 18 Cambodia 7 Sri Lanka 10 Sri Lanka 123 Nepal 12 Senegal 13 Nepal 6 Ethiopia 6 Mali 94 Cameroon 6 Kenya 8 Kenya 5 Madagascar 4 Cameroon 75 Cambodia 5 Republic of Congo 5 Sierra Leone 5 Cameroon 4 Kenya 46 Kenya 4 Cambodia 5 Republic of Congo 4 Cambodia 4 Nigeria 47 Senegal 4 Mali 3 Senegal 4 Republic of Congo 4 Senegal 48 Republic of Congo 4 Nepal 3 Madagascar 2 Nepal 3 Nepal 19 Uganda 3 Uganda 2 Mali 2 Uganda 3 Republic of Congo 1
10 DR Congo 1 Madagascar 2 Liberia 2 DR Congo 1 Cambodia 111 Madagascar 1 Liberia 1 Uganda 1 Mali <1 Madagascar 112 Liberia 1 Sierra Leone 0 DR Congo 0 Liberia - DR Congo 013 Mali <1 Ethiopia - Nigeria - Kenya - Liberia -14 Sierra Leone - Nigeria - Ethiopia - Sierra Leone - Uganda -15 Ethiopia - DR of Congo - Sri Lanka - Nigeria - Sierra Leone -
SIF Pilot Countries Ranked on the Amount of Government Funds Spent on Routine Immunization 1
per Surviving Infant2
1 WHO/UNICEF JRF Indicator 6730 (http://www.who.int/immunization_fi nancing/data/en/)
2 UN Population Divis ion Onl ine Database (http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators .htm)
Country ownership
• In the next, more efficient equilibriumNational managers will manage the programsDecisions will be based on national technical
expertise (NITAGs)Any external funding will be on budget and
managed as national funds are managedGovernments will allocate US$40 per infant
for routine immunization, by lawImmunization will be part of social contracts
Equilibrium change
• How can we move from the current dependent equilibrium to a superior one wherein each country owns its immunization program?
• Three intertwined, endogenous pathwaysinstitutional innovationcollective action social learning
Institutional innovation
• Key public institutions (ministry of health, ministry of finance, parliament, subnational governments) develop new ways of working
• Each institution must innovateMinistry of health begins to monitor and report
program efficiency (ie, expenditures per fully immunized child), allowing a stronger immunization investment case to be made
Institutional innovation Ministry of Finance considers these efficiency
estimates when it recommends and follows the execution of the immunization budget
Parliament scrutinizes the budget and follows program execution (technical and budgetary)
Government and parliament write and enact a national vaccination law
Expected results: Larger, more efficient national immunization budgets, legislation guaranteeing immunization budgets (earmarking, dedicated revenue sources)
Institutional innovation• Assuming they are motivated, what can
champions in these public institutions do? Can they induce the innovations needed to move their countries toward the sustainable immunization financing goal?
• Yes, particularly if we: provide peer to peer learning opportunities support them as collective actors
Institutional innovation How do innovations happen? Four distinct
mechanisms have been identified• Top -> down: Champions at national level
conceive and push through the changesExamples: Sri Lanka, Nepal, Mali
• Collaboration among institutions: they innovate together, sometimes producing unexpected results Intergovernmental: national + subnational Intersectoral: government + private sector
Example: Rotary PolioPlus Program
Institutional innovation
Four distinct mechanisms, continued• Bottom -> up: Champions at organizational
level conceive, disseminate the changesexamples: Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Uganda
• Third parties: Champions in the institutions or organizations bring in help from the outside examples: Kenya, Cameroon, Nepal
Institutional innovation Three current SIF Program examples:
Public institutions (Democratic Republic of Congo): The President of the Budget Commission, National Assembly, works with the MoH immunization program team to prepare more defensible annual budgets
Other domestic institutions (Nepal): Rotary and Lions Clubs, banks, industrial houses have formed a private fund to co-finance the immunization program
Institutional innovation• Three current examples, continued:
Third parties (West Africa): WHO, Sabin, UNICEF collaborate to train budget officials on immunization program budgeting using Multi-Year Plan (cMYP) tool
• Institutional innovations are unpredictable “…organizational change is unplanned and goes on
largely behind the backs of groups that wish to influence it” (DiMaggio and Powell 1983:157).
Collective action
• Under proper conditions, heterogeneous actors following different logics will act collectively to secure a public good
• Some rules of collective actionEach actor, each institution must accept the
common goal (the immunization program sustainably financed, technically self reliant)
All collective actors must contribute: free riding is not tolerated
Collective action
• Rules of collective action, continued External agencies- here Sabin’s SIF Program-
help coordinate the collective action, monitor contributions, provide feedback and extol public recognition of individual actors
Flexibility: Strategies change as needed An independent (exogenous) measure, or
certification process, defines when the public good is secured
Social learning
• Once mobilized, collective actors will be exposed to new ideas, new environments, new social phenomena
• One of these phenomena is social learning (social cognition), in which each actor observes the behaviors and standards of other influential actors People acquire large, complex behavioral
repertoires without having to learn them through trial and error
A global public good
• Through collective action and social learning, peers learn from each other and decide jointly whether or not to undertake the institutional innovations needed to secure the public good
• Coordination, monitoring and feedback induce a race to the top among countries
• Result: The global public good of a fully immunized world
Summary
• Most countries are underinvesting, do not own their immunization programs
• Countries can appropriate their immunization programs through several endogenous change mechanisms
• External partners support, don’t control
• Together, we can produce the global public good of a fully immunized world
Thank you for your attention!