TABLE 2.
Health Financing Functions | Themes | Subthemes |
---|---|---|
Revenue generation | Budget | Low budget size |
Unpredictable release of approved funds | ||
Nonimplementation of earmarked funds by states | ||
Lack of geographic prioritization | ||
Weak engagement with Ministry of Finance officials | ||
Donor funding | HIV response is donor driven | |
Donor funding is declining | ||
Private-sector financing | Existence of HIV Trust Fund could increase private-sector investment | |
Philanthropic contribution | Zakat seen as opportunity to fund vulnerable PLHIV | |
Philanthropic aid/adoption of PLHIV enrolled in SHI schemes | ||
Pooling and fund management | Donor coordination | Lack of harmonization, weak partner coordination, and lack of a clear transition plan |
SHI scheme | Existence of national guidelines | |
Slow integration of HIV into SHI schemes | ||
Fear of cost of HIV treatment | ||
Basic Health Care Provision Fund | HIV services not provided as specified in benefits | |
Benefit specification excluded HIV agencies and programs | ||
Purchasing | Community-led interventions | Key populations targeted using one-stop shops |
Unwillingness to sustain one-stop shops | ||
Reluctance to financing community-led interventions from government budgets | ||
Efficiency of purchasing | Slow decentralization of HIV treatment to primary health facilities | |
Private providers enrolled in SHI schemes to provide HIV services | ||
Government spending delinked from results |
Abbreviations: PLHIV, people living with HIV; SHI, social health insurance.