MeTA evaluation and future

1,083 views

Published on

Presentation by Saul Walker, Acting Team Leader, Health Services Team during the MeTA countries sharing meeting, London, December 2009.

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

MeTA evaluation and future

  1. 1. MeTA Evaluation and Future Saul Walker Acting Team Leader, Health Services Team
  2. 2. MeTA – DFID commitments <ul><li>£20m 10 year commitment subject to successful pilot phase. </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot runs May 2008 – Sept 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most countries implementing plans from beginning to mid-2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Evaluation of pilot 1Q10 – report in April 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Decision in May followed by 6 – 9 month transition phase </li></ul>
  3. 3. The hypothesis … Multi-stakeholder disclosure & scrutiny Transparency Mutual Accountability Efficiency (public/private) Better policies, improved business practice & stronger implementation Validated Information & Appropriate Disclosure
  4. 4. MeTA Process Disclosure of data and scrutiny by multi - stakeholder group Development of policy options Policy change and implementation Improved information for management Improved processes . New validated data on pharmaceutical sector New validated data on pharmaceutical sector Disclosure of data and scrutiny by multi - stakeholder group Development of policy options Policy change and implementation Changes in drug prices, availability, quality and/or promotion Changes in drug prices, availability, quality and/or promotion Improved information for management Improved processes . Pilot New validated data on pharmaceutical sector Changes in drug prices, availability, quality and/or promotion
  5. 5. MeTA Evaluation - Focus <ul><li>Process evaluation to assess </li></ul><ul><li>Viability </li></ul><ul><li>Whether supports more informed policy development and business practices and </li></ul><ul><li>In the longer term, if likely to support policy implementation and behaviour change </li></ul>
  6. 6. Evaluation Questions Hypothesis Sources <ul><li>Countries can establish functioning multi-stakeholder groups to agree plans for the generation and disclosure of robust policy relevant information </li></ul><ul><li>Country work plans </li></ul><ul><li>Proceedings from multi-stakeholder group meetings </li></ul><ul><li>IDS multi-stakeholder assessments </li></ul><ul><li>Key informant interviews </li></ul>
  7. 7. Evaluation Questions Hypothesis Sources <ul><li>MeTA has built capacity to and has resulted in the disclosure and scrutiny of relevant and high-quality information </li></ul><ul><li>Country work plans </li></ul><ul><li>Proceedings from multi-stakeholder meetings </li></ul><ul><li>MeTA ‘toolbox’ </li></ul><ul><li>Documented examples data disclosure </li></ul><ul><li>Media coverage of MeTA and ATM issues </li></ul><ul><li>Website utilisation data </li></ul>
  8. 8. Evaluation Questions Hypothesis Sources <ul><li>MeTA has facilitated the development of informed proposals for changes in policy and business practices </li></ul><ul><li>Country work plans </li></ul><ul><li>Proceedings from multi-stakeholder group meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Key informant interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Media reporting of ATM issues </li></ul><ul><li>Documented examples of policy development/change. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Evaluation Questions - Process <ul><li>How effective has the structure of MeTA been in supporting country activities and the participation of the three main constituencies? </li></ul><ul><li>What have the contributions of WHO and the World Bank participation in MeTA been? </li></ul><ul><li>To what degree has MeTA been a country driven process that has been integrated with and broader strategies and mechanisms? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the MeTA Secretariat effectively delivered against its objectives? </li></ul>
  10. 10. Recommendations <ul><li>Sufficiency of evidence that purpose-level objectives are likely to be achieved by 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>Possible changes to the structure of MeTA to improve country support </li></ul><ul><li>Utility of and how to improve constituency participation </li></ul><ul><li>Possible changes that could facilitate achievement of goal level objectives </li></ul><ul><li>How to sharpen the poverty focus of MeTA </li></ul>
  11. 11. Evaluation Team <ul><li>DFID Human Development Resource Centre – HLSP </li></ul><ul><li>Four person international team (plus additional Russian speaking consultant) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Health, medicines, governance, evaluation, country, civil society and private sector experience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional country consultants </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Methodology and Sources <ul><li>Document review </li></ul><ul><li>Data review (e.g. baseline surveys) </li></ul><ul><li>Key informant interviews – all constituencies </li></ul><ul><li>Field visits </li></ul>
  13. 13. Outputs <ul><li>Detailed report </li></ul><ul><li>Executive summary </li></ul><ul><li>Short case-studies (to support lesson learning) </li></ul><ul><li>Presentation materials </li></ul>
  14. 14. MeTA Post-Pilot
  15. 15. Two scenarios <ul><li>Positive evaluation - move to implementation phase </li></ul><ul><li>Negative evaluation - wind down DFID funding and provide transition support </li></ul>
  16. 16. Implementation Phase <ul><li>Externalise from DFID </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DFID supports but broaden ownership </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expand donor base </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fund-holding mechanism </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Develop governance mechanism </li></ul><ul><li>Secretariat function </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop TORs based on evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competitive Tender </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Implementation Phase <ul><li>Consolidation in MeTA pilot countries </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing support functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5 year evaluation (2012) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expand number of participating countries </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Criteria for selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scoping for scoping and preparation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Develop MeTA model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accreditation? </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Possible Wind Down <ul><li>6 months support to complete existing country work plans </li></ul><ul><li>Transition support to countries that wish to continue transparency activities </li></ul>

×