| Literature DB >> 26582744 |
Karar Zunaid Ahsan1, Peter Kim Streatfield2, Rashida-E- Ijdi3, Gabriela Maria Escudero3, Abdul Waheed Khan4, M M Reza4.
Abstract
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) of the Government of Bangladesh embarked on a sector-wide approach (SWAp) modality for the health, nutrition and population (HNP) sector in 1998. This programmatic shift initiated a different set of planning disciplines and practices along with institutional changes in the MOHFW. Over the years, the SWAp modality has evolved in Bangladesh as the MOHFW has learnt from its implementation and refined the program design. This article explores the progress made, both in terms of achievement of health outcomes and systems strengthening results, since the implementation of the SWAp for Bangladesh's health sector. Secondary analyses of survey data from 1993 to 2011 as well as a literature review of published and grey literature on health SWAp in Bangladesh was conducted for this assessment. Results of the assessment indicate that the MOHFW made substantial progress in health outcomes and health systems strengthening. SWAps facilitated the alignment of funding and technical support around national priorities, and improved the government's role in program design as well as in implementation and development partner coordination. Notable systemic improvements have taken place in the country systems with regards to monitoring and evaluation, procurement and service provision, which have improved functionality of health facilities to provide essential care. Implementation of the SWAp has, therefore, contributed to an accelerated improvement in key health outcomes in Bangladesh over the last 15 years. The health SWAp in Bangladesh offers an example of a successful adaptation of such an approach in a complex administrative structure. Based on the lessons learned from SWAp implementation in Bangladesh, the MOHFW needs to play a stronger stewardship and regulatory role to reap the full benefits of a SWAp in its subsequent programming.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; development partners; health policy; health reform; sector-wide approach
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26582744 PMCID: PMC4857486 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czv108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Policy Plan ISSN: 0268-1080 Impact factor: 3.344
Major HNP-related projects in Bangladesh, 1975–98
| Project name | Duration | Objective | Financiers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh First Population Project | 1975–80 | Increase use of FP and MCH services | World Bank, Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom |
| Bangladesh Second Population and Family Health Project | 1980–86 | Development of national FP programme | World Bank, Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom |
| Bangladesh Third Population and Family Welfare Project | 1986–91 | Reduction of fertility and IMR | World Bank, Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and United Kingdom |
| Bangladesh Fourth Population and Health Project | 1992–98 | Reduction of fertility and IMR, improvement of MCH | World Bank, Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom and European Union. |
Health SWAps in Bangladesh, 1998–2014
| Programme name | Duration | Fund (GOB contribution) | Co-financiers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health and Population Sector Programme (HPSP) | 1998–2003 | US$ 2.2 billion (62%) | World Bank, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and European Union |
| Health, Nutrition and Population Sector Programme (HNPSP) | 2003–11 | US$ 5.4 billion (67%) | World Bank, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, European Union and UNFPA |
| Health, Population and Nutrition Sector Development Programme (HPNSDP) | 2011–16 | US$ 7.7 billion (76%) | World Bank, Canada, Sweden, Australia, United Kingdom, Germany and United States. |
Figure 1.GOB’s ADP Expenditure for MOHFW, 1991–2013 (World Bank 2005a, World Bank 2011, World Bank 2012b)
Figure 2.Timeline of major policy formulation and programme initiatives relevant to MCH in Bangladesh
Figure 3.Selected indicators on service provision in primary- and secondary-level government health facilities, 1997 and 2011
Figure 4.Selected indicators on service outputs in primary- and secondary-level government health facilities, 1997 and 2011
Figure 5.Trends in selected service utilization indicators in Bangladesh, 1992–2009
Figure 6.Trends in selected population and health outcomes in Bangladesh, 1992–2009
Assessment of progress in key elements in Bangladesh’s HNP SWAps, 1998–2016
| SWAp elements | Progresses made | Major constraining factors |
|---|---|---|
| Agreed health sector plan | Since the Health and Population Strategy 1997, all the HNP SWAps in Bangladesh were driven by HNP sector plans agreed between MOHFW and DPs; and in sync with GOB’s FYPs | None (parallel projects and off-budget activities are deviations, but broadly agree with the sector plan) |
| Government ownership | Ownership improved substantially over time—currently the programme review process is functionally conducted by Planning Wing of MOHFW | None |
| Partnership between DPs and government, and among donors | Both the GOB and DPs are committed to the aid effectiveness principles as codified in the Paris Declaration, institutionalized through GOB-DP Task Groups for technical discussions by thematic areas and Local Consultative Group (LCG) meetings for GOB-DP dialogue on strategic issues |
Joint Cooperation Agreement (JCA), to promote MOHFW-DP and DP-DP coordination for SWAp not in place till halfway of HPNSDP; National level (inter-ministerial) coordination mechanisms have not worked effectively |
| Increased funding availability and longer term commitment |
DP financing commitment for SWAp duration (5 years); GOB’s sector-wide MTBF mechanism in place to project fund availability for 5 years (earlier MTBF provided projection of fund availability for 3-year period on annual rolling basis) |
Increase in GOB investment for SWAp not in line with increase in national budget; DPA monitoring improved but coordination with sector activities remains wanting; MOHFW increasing budget allocation for discrete projects, mostly large infrastructure; Huge off-budget DP investment in HNP sector continues; Some DPs getting out of HNP sector (e.g. AusAID, EU, The Netherlands, GIZ); Large inflow of global funds is a new feature |
| Effort to streamline funding arrangemnts |
Transaction cost minimized; Pooled funding between major DPs like the World Bank, Canada, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States, complemented by parallel funding by many DPs and MOHFW itself; Strong ADP monitoring mechanism in place; Recent trend of accommodating DP fund through separate RPA arrangement |
Focus on procurement of equipment and expansion of infrastructure generate stress on programme’s resource envelope; Capacity to fully utilize the treasury model is not realized yet |
| Institutional capacity and good governance | MOHFW now has greater capacity for all the building blocks (planning, coordination, M&E; and procurement) |
FM performance affected by various factors: dearth of finance staff at all levels, absence of an appropriate training strategy and the lack of timely follow up on issues raised by the internal and external audits; HR remains a concern Stewardship and regulatory role constrained by weak legal framework and institutional inadequacies of regulatory bodies under the MOHFW |
| Stability of DP and government personnel |
Long-term specialized support through TA are in place; A multi-year, harmonized TA plan is followed for recruiting short-term consultants | High turnover of GOB officials obstructs sustainable capacity building of the MOHFW |