Challenges and Opportunities for
Sustainable Actions to Address HIV
 among Special Populations in the
            Caribbean


        National AIDS Spending
     Assessments in the Caribbean

    Andrew Fearon: afearon.consulting@gmail.com
Total HIV Expenditure 2002-
        2009 Trinidad & Tobago
140



120



100



 80


                                                               TT$m
 60



 40



 20



  0
       2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
Presentation Outline

1. BACKGROUND
  - Why Track HIV Expenditures
  - Why Track HIV Prevention Expenditures on MARPs
  - HIV Prevalence in the Caribbean (Gen Pop, MSM, FSW)

2. METHODS
   - National AIDS Spending Assessment (NASA)
   - National Health Accounts (NHA)
   - UNGASS Reporting on National HIV Spending

3. RESULTS
4. DISCUSSION
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Background
1. Why Track HIV Expenditures
   Since 2001 there has been an unprecedented level in external financial
    and technical assistance from mechanisms like the UN Joint
    Team, PEPFAR, the GF, World Bank and other donors in the region

   While this surge in funding is a welcome development, perhaps more
    critical than the amount invested is how those funds are spent and
    whether or not they are meeting intended targets i.e. more efficiency
    and with greater impact – or are they targeted at all?

   Tracking HIV expenditures can measure the extent of government /
    donor commitment over time—towards a sustainable national and
    regional response

   The Global Economic Crisis has forced all partners to do more to meet
    unmet needs with finite resources.
Why Track HIV Prevention Expenditure
        on Most At Risk Populations
   Three of the largest Anglophone Caribbean countries
    (Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana) report an
    HIV prevalence of 20 percent or more among MSM.
    (UNAIDS 2008).

   For many other countries, it is not clear if MARPs are
    the drivers of the Epidemic

   Preventing HIV transmission among MARPS benefits
    society as a whole because they can serve as a bridge
    to spread HIV to the wider population
Comparing Adult HIV Prevalence
with HIV Prevalence in MSM (2005-2008)

35%
                         31.8%                  Adult HIV Prevalance
30%                                             MSM Prevalance

25%
                                            21%
                 20%
20%

15%

10%                                                     8.2%
                                    7%
         6%
 5%                              2.4%    2.5%         3%
      1.1%    1.5%     1.6%

 0%
      DOR      T&T     JAM       SUR     GUY          BAH
Comparing Adult HIV Prevalence
 with HIV Prevalence in FSWs (2008-2009)

30%
                                                  27%
                                                        Adult HIV Prevalance
25%
                                     21%                SW Prevalance

20%


15%


10%                      9%


5%           3%               2.4%         2.5%
      1.1%        1.6%

0%
      DOR          JAM         SUR          GUY
Methods
Study Methods
Data collected from the (UNAIDS) National AIDS Spending
Assessment (NASA), (WHO) National Health Accounts (SHA)
and UNGASS Indicator 1 on Four countries in the Caribbean
was utilized for this study. Using data collected from this study
we conducted the following analysis:

1.   Described the trends in HIV expenditures related to GDP
2.   Compare contributions of domestic and international
     financing sources for HIV
3.   Compared HIV expenditures on MARPS with overall
     prevention expenditures.
4.   Based on current HIV expenditure on MARPs, discuss
     utility of expenditure tracking surveys for making resource
     allocation and mobilization decisions with a view to
     sustainability for MARPs programming
National AIDS Spending Assessment
(NASA)
    Developed by UNAIDS to track all financial flows relating to HIV and
     AIDS


    Designed to give decision makers critical financial information to
     enable improved decision making on sustained and efficient allocation
     of resources.

    NASA is a globally recognized methodology, linked to the SHA that
     reveals sources of funds, expenditure by provider, expenditure by
     activity, expenditure by beneficiary population.

    Can point to greater efficiencies in resource utilization – Visualize
     Resource Gaps

    Tracking trends in expenditure in HIV & AIDS performance can be
     benchmarked against the priorities and objectives as outlined in the
     NSP and facilitate a better understanding of needs and identify gaps
     in programs


                                                                             11
NASA Methodology

       Financing Source           Financing Agent          Provider



                                  AIDS Spending
                                 Categories (ASCs)


               ASC1                                       ASC2

Production                 Beneficiary       Production            Beneficiary
 Factors1                 Populations1        Factors2            Populations2
Results Trinidad & Tobago
       2002-2009
Results: Trinidad and Tobago 2002-2009
                                Expenditure by Priority Area

                   Prevention
       60
                   Treatment
       50
                   A & HR
       40          S&R
TT$m




       30          Programme Mgmt

       20
       10
        0
            2002     2003       2004    2005     2006     2007   2008   2009
Results: Trinidad and Tobago
                 2002-2009

                                  Prevention Expenditure

                 General Population
TT$m20
                 MARP
    18
    16           PMTCT and VCT
    14
    12
    10
     8
     6
     4
     2
     0
          2002        2003       2004    2005    2006      2007   2008   2009
Results: Trinidad and Tobago
        2002-2009
      HIV Expenditure Targeting Beneficiary Populations 2002-20009

70%
60%
50%
                                                              PLWHA
40%
                                                              MARP
30%
                                                              General Population
20%
10%
0%
      2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
Results: Trinidad and Tobago
               2002-2009
                                   Sources of Funding for Prevention
                   Health                      2002-2009
      $25          NACC
                   Other Gov't
      $20
                   International
      $15          Private
TT$




      $10

      $5

      $0
            2002        2003       2004     2005    2006     2007      2008   2009
Results: Caribbean
HIV Expenditure % Share of GDP and
Total HIV Expenditure USD. 2008 2009 2010
1.20%

1.00%

0.80%
                                               2008
0.60%
                                               2009
0.40%                                          2010

0.20%

0.00%
        A              B       C       D



            0.03


            0.02


            0.02
                                                      2008
                                                      2009
            0.01
                                                      2010

            0.01


              -
                   A       B       C       D
Total HIV Expenditure per
        Capita USD 2008 2009 2010
35.00



30.00



25.00



20.00
                                     2008
                                     2009
15.00
                                     2010


10.00



 5.00



   -
           A     B      C      D
HIV Expenditure by Priority
          Country A 2008 2009
50.0%


45.0%


40.0%


35.0%


30.0%


25.0%
                                                                                                    2008
                                                                                                    2009
20.0%


15.0%


10.0%


5.0%


0.0%
        Prevention   Treatment   OVC   Programme    Human        Social      Enabling    Research
                                       Managment   Resources   Protection   Enviroment
HIV Expenditure by Priority
              Country B 2008 2009
50.0%


45.0%


40.0%


35.0%


30.0%


25.0%
                                                                                                    2008
                                                                                                    2009
20.0%


15.0%


10.0%


5.0%


0.0%
        Prevention   Treatment   OVC   Programme    Human        Social      Enabling    Research
                                       Managment   Resources   Protection   Enviroment
HIV Expenditure by Priority
              Country C 2009 2010
45.00%


40.00%


35.00%


30.00%


25.00%

                                                                                                   2009
20.00%
                                                                                                   2010

15.00%


10.00%


5.00%


0.00%
         Prevention   Treatment   OVC   Programme  Human        Social      Enabling    Research
                                        Managment Resources   Protection   Enviroment
HIV Expenditure by Priority
                 Country D 2008
                                              2008
45.00%


40.00%


35.00%


30.00%


25.00%


20.00%                                                                                             2008

15.00%


10.00%


5.00%


0.00%
         Prevention   Treatment   OVC   Programme  Human        Social      Enabling    Research
                                        Managment Resources   Protection   Enviroment
Percentage Share HIV
 Expenditure Prevention: Sex
   Workers 2008 2009 2010
4.00%


3.50%


3.00%


2.50%


                               2008
2.00%
                               2009
                               2010
1.50%


1.00%


0.50%


0.00%
        A   B     C      D
Percentage Share HIV
    Expenditure Prevention: MSM
            2008 2009 2010
3.50%



3.00%



2.50%



2.00%
                                  2008
                                  2009
1.50%
                                  2010


1.00%



0.50%



0.00%
        A      B      C      D
Percentage Share HIV
        Expenditure Prevention: Drug
            Users 2008 2009 2010
0.035



 0.03



0.025



 0.02
                                       2008
                                       2009
0.015
                                       2010


 0.01



0.005



   0
           A      B     C      D
Percentage Share HIV
Expenditure Prevention: General
   Population 2008 2009 2010
70.00%



60.00%



50.00%



40.00%
                             2008
                             2009
30.00%
                             2010


20.00%



10.00%



0.00%
         A   B    C      D
Percentage Share HIV
          Expenditure Stigma &
       Discrimination 2008 2009 2010
8.0%


7.0%


6.0%


5.0%


                                       2009
4.0%
                                       2009
                                       2010
3.0%


2.0%


1.0%


0.0%
          A      B      C      D
Percentage Share HIV
Expenditure Civil Societies 2008
           2009 2010
40%


35%


30%


25%


                              2008
20%
                              2009
                              2010
15%


10%


5%


0%
      A    B      C      D
Measurement Challenges
 Inaccessibility and unavailability of expenditure data
   Unavailability and limited recognition of the need for
    expenditure to be disaggregated by activity and by
    beneficiary population.
   Lack of financial coordination between funding agents -
    donors and governments – varying
    budgeting, accounting and financial reporting
   Donors financial plans are not harmonised with Country
    National HIV Strategic Plans
   Not all National Strategic Plans are costed –
    comparison of expenditure against the budgets..


                                                              31
Measurement Challenges
 Lack of an Agenda. Expenditure analysis is seen as a
    donor led activity with limited country buy-in

   Piecemeal implementation reduces the value of the
    expenditure analysis for decision making
Challenges
   Lack of Institutionalisation of expenditure
    tracking – UNGASS Indicator 1 findings:
     Little emphasis on data collection
     Confusion between Budgets and Expenditure
     Confusion between Objectives and Activities
   Technical Capacity – emphasis on data
    production, not translation into policy
   Lack of transfer of capacity to local staff
   Lack of Dissemination of expenditure reports
   Lack of understanding between Expenditure
    Analysis and Auditing
Recommendations
   Governance –
     expenditure assessments should be
      incorporated into the strategic planning
      cycle,
     International agencies should promote
      capacity building in financial policy making,
     CSO need to ensure that financial
      commitments are maintained by
      Governments and Donors
Recommendations
   Human Resources–
     Commitment to Learn by doing
     Support by external consultants should focus
      on capacity building rather than data collection.
     Training in financial capacity building –
      government, international and CSO sector
   Financial Information
     Develop systems that can link financial
      information to activity based budgeting
     Integrate expenditure analysis into the country
      planning and budgeting process
Recommendations For
            Sustainability
   Align external support to national Strategic Plans
    which are costed.
   Recognise where the funding is currently flowing
    from and where it is flowing to.
   Identify current challenges in funding
   Recognise what funding (Technical Support as well
    as cash transfer) the government already provide
   Examine areas that can gradually be incorporated
    into government annual plans and commitments
   Develop a domestic sustainable funding strategy
Conclusions
   Expenditure on HIV prevention programs for MSM
    and CSW is very low relative to overall prevention
    expenditure—despite the proportion of HIV
    transmission attributed to sex between men.
   The evidence, both on the magnitude of the issue
    and the effectiveness of MSM
    interventions, demands that countries increase
    resource allocations for MSM programming.
   Government policymakers and program planners
    will require more evidence of the cost-
    effectiveness of MSM interventions so that they
    understand the value of investing in programs for
    most-at-risk groups—this needs to be part of
    future research agendas
Post Script – International
Agencies Commitment
   PANCAP
     Caribbean Based Resource Mapping Project
     Resource Mapping in the British Overseas Territories
   World Bank. The Global Strategic Action Plan
    for the Promotion of National Health Accounts
   UNAIDS. The National AIDS Spending
    Assessment
   OECD, World Bank, WHO and USAID. Where
    is the money and what are we doing with it?
    Creating an Evidence Base for Better Health
    Financing and Greater Accountability

Caribbean HIV Conference. AIDS Spending Presentation

  • 1.
    Challenges and Opportunitiesfor Sustainable Actions to Address HIV among Special Populations in the Caribbean National AIDS Spending Assessments in the Caribbean Andrew Fearon: afearon.consulting@gmail.com
  • 2.
    Total HIV Expenditure2002- 2009 Trinidad & Tobago 140 120 100 80 TT$m 60 40 20 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
  • 3.
    Presentation Outline 1. BACKGROUND - Why Track HIV Expenditures - Why Track HIV Prevention Expenditures on MARPs - HIV Prevalence in the Caribbean (Gen Pop, MSM, FSW) 2. METHODS - National AIDS Spending Assessment (NASA) - National Health Accounts (NHA) - UNGASS Reporting on National HIV Spending 3. RESULTS 4. DISCUSSION 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • 4.
  • 5.
    1. Why TrackHIV Expenditures  Since 2001 there has been an unprecedented level in external financial and technical assistance from mechanisms like the UN Joint Team, PEPFAR, the GF, World Bank and other donors in the region  While this surge in funding is a welcome development, perhaps more critical than the amount invested is how those funds are spent and whether or not they are meeting intended targets i.e. more efficiency and with greater impact – or are they targeted at all?  Tracking HIV expenditures can measure the extent of government / donor commitment over time—towards a sustainable national and regional response  The Global Economic Crisis has forced all partners to do more to meet unmet needs with finite resources.
  • 6.
    Why Track HIVPrevention Expenditure on Most At Risk Populations  Three of the largest Anglophone Caribbean countries (Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana) report an HIV prevalence of 20 percent or more among MSM. (UNAIDS 2008).  For many other countries, it is not clear if MARPs are the drivers of the Epidemic  Preventing HIV transmission among MARPS benefits society as a whole because they can serve as a bridge to spread HIV to the wider population
  • 7.
    Comparing Adult HIVPrevalence with HIV Prevalence in MSM (2005-2008) 35% 31.8% Adult HIV Prevalance 30% MSM Prevalance 25% 21% 20% 20% 15% 10% 8.2% 7% 6% 5% 2.4% 2.5% 3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.6% 0% DOR T&T JAM SUR GUY BAH
  • 8.
    Comparing Adult HIVPrevalence with HIV Prevalence in FSWs (2008-2009) 30% 27% Adult HIV Prevalance 25% 21% SW Prevalance 20% 15% 10% 9% 5% 3% 2.4% 2.5% 1.1% 1.6% 0% DOR JAM SUR GUY
  • 9.
  • 10.
    Study Methods Data collectedfrom the (UNAIDS) National AIDS Spending Assessment (NASA), (WHO) National Health Accounts (SHA) and UNGASS Indicator 1 on Four countries in the Caribbean was utilized for this study. Using data collected from this study we conducted the following analysis: 1. Described the trends in HIV expenditures related to GDP 2. Compare contributions of domestic and international financing sources for HIV 3. Compared HIV expenditures on MARPS with overall prevention expenditures. 4. Based on current HIV expenditure on MARPs, discuss utility of expenditure tracking surveys for making resource allocation and mobilization decisions with a view to sustainability for MARPs programming
  • 11.
    National AIDS SpendingAssessment (NASA)  Developed by UNAIDS to track all financial flows relating to HIV and AIDS  Designed to give decision makers critical financial information to enable improved decision making on sustained and efficient allocation of resources.  NASA is a globally recognized methodology, linked to the SHA that reveals sources of funds, expenditure by provider, expenditure by activity, expenditure by beneficiary population.  Can point to greater efficiencies in resource utilization – Visualize Resource Gaps  Tracking trends in expenditure in HIV & AIDS performance can be benchmarked against the priorities and objectives as outlined in the NSP and facilitate a better understanding of needs and identify gaps in programs 11
  • 12.
    NASA Methodology Financing Source Financing Agent Provider AIDS Spending Categories (ASCs) ASC1 ASC2 Production Beneficiary Production Beneficiary Factors1 Populations1 Factors2 Populations2
  • 13.
    Results Trinidad &Tobago 2002-2009
  • 14.
    Results: Trinidad andTobago 2002-2009 Expenditure by Priority Area Prevention 60 Treatment 50 A & HR 40 S&R TT$m 30 Programme Mgmt 20 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
  • 15.
    Results: Trinidad andTobago 2002-2009 Prevention Expenditure General Population TT$m20 MARP 18 16 PMTCT and VCT 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
  • 16.
    Results: Trinidad andTobago 2002-2009 HIV Expenditure Targeting Beneficiary Populations 2002-20009 70% 60% 50% PLWHA 40% MARP 30% General Population 20% 10% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
  • 17.
    Results: Trinidad andTobago 2002-2009 Sources of Funding for Prevention Health 2002-2009 $25 NACC Other Gov't $20 International $15 Private TT$ $10 $5 $0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
  • 18.
  • 19.
    HIV Expenditure %Share of GDP and Total HIV Expenditure USD. 2008 2009 2010 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 2008 0.60% 2009 0.40% 2010 0.20% 0.00% A B C D 0.03 0.02 0.02 2008 2009 0.01 2010 0.01 - A B C D
  • 20.
    Total HIV Expenditureper Capita USD 2008 2009 2010 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 2008 2009 15.00 2010 10.00 5.00 - A B C D
  • 21.
    HIV Expenditure byPriority Country A 2008 2009 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 2008 2009 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Prevention Treatment OVC Programme Human Social Enabling Research Managment Resources Protection Enviroment
  • 22.
    HIV Expenditure byPriority Country B 2008 2009 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 2008 2009 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Prevention Treatment OVC Programme Human Social Enabling Research Managment Resources Protection Enviroment
  • 23.
    HIV Expenditure byPriority Country C 2009 2010 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 2009 20.00% 2010 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Prevention Treatment OVC Programme Human Social Enabling Research Managment Resources Protection Enviroment
  • 24.
    HIV Expenditure byPriority Country D 2008 2008 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 2008 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Prevention Treatment OVC Programme Human Social Enabling Research Managment Resources Protection Enviroment
  • 25.
    Percentage Share HIV Expenditure Prevention: Sex Workers 2008 2009 2010 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2008 2.00% 2009 2010 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% A B C D
  • 26.
    Percentage Share HIV Expenditure Prevention: MSM 2008 2009 2010 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 2008 2009 1.50% 2010 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% A B C D
  • 27.
    Percentage Share HIV Expenditure Prevention: Drug Users 2008 2009 2010 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 2008 2009 0.015 2010 0.01 0.005 0 A B C D
  • 28.
    Percentage Share HIV ExpenditurePrevention: General Population 2008 2009 2010 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 2008 2009 30.00% 2010 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A B C D
  • 29.
    Percentage Share HIV Expenditure Stigma & Discrimination 2008 2009 2010 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 2009 4.0% 2009 2010 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% A B C D
  • 30.
    Percentage Share HIV ExpenditureCivil Societies 2008 2009 2010 40% 35% 30% 25% 2008 20% 2009 2010 15% 10% 5% 0% A B C D
  • 31.
    Measurement Challenges  Inaccessibilityand unavailability of expenditure data  Unavailability and limited recognition of the need for expenditure to be disaggregated by activity and by beneficiary population.  Lack of financial coordination between funding agents - donors and governments – varying budgeting, accounting and financial reporting  Donors financial plans are not harmonised with Country National HIV Strategic Plans  Not all National Strategic Plans are costed – comparison of expenditure against the budgets.. 31
  • 32.
    Measurement Challenges  Lackof an Agenda. Expenditure analysis is seen as a donor led activity with limited country buy-in  Piecemeal implementation reduces the value of the expenditure analysis for decision making
  • 33.
    Challenges  Lack of Institutionalisation of expenditure tracking – UNGASS Indicator 1 findings:  Little emphasis on data collection  Confusion between Budgets and Expenditure  Confusion between Objectives and Activities  Technical Capacity – emphasis on data production, not translation into policy  Lack of transfer of capacity to local staff  Lack of Dissemination of expenditure reports  Lack of understanding between Expenditure Analysis and Auditing
  • 34.
    Recommendations  Governance –  expenditure assessments should be incorporated into the strategic planning cycle,  International agencies should promote capacity building in financial policy making,  CSO need to ensure that financial commitments are maintained by Governments and Donors
  • 35.
    Recommendations  Human Resources–  Commitment to Learn by doing  Support by external consultants should focus on capacity building rather than data collection.  Training in financial capacity building – government, international and CSO sector  Financial Information  Develop systems that can link financial information to activity based budgeting  Integrate expenditure analysis into the country planning and budgeting process
  • 36.
    Recommendations For Sustainability  Align external support to national Strategic Plans which are costed.  Recognise where the funding is currently flowing from and where it is flowing to.  Identify current challenges in funding  Recognise what funding (Technical Support as well as cash transfer) the government already provide  Examine areas that can gradually be incorporated into government annual plans and commitments  Develop a domestic sustainable funding strategy
  • 37.
    Conclusions  Expenditure on HIV prevention programs for MSM and CSW is very low relative to overall prevention expenditure—despite the proportion of HIV transmission attributed to sex between men.  The evidence, both on the magnitude of the issue and the effectiveness of MSM interventions, demands that countries increase resource allocations for MSM programming.  Government policymakers and program planners will require more evidence of the cost- effectiveness of MSM interventions so that they understand the value of investing in programs for most-at-risk groups—this needs to be part of future research agendas
  • 38.
    Post Script –International Agencies Commitment  PANCAP  Caribbean Based Resource Mapping Project  Resource Mapping in the British Overseas Territories  World Bank. The Global Strategic Action Plan for the Promotion of National Health Accounts  UNAIDS. The National AIDS Spending Assessment  OECD, World Bank, WHO and USAID. Where is the money and what are we doing with it? Creating an Evidence Base for Better Health Financing and Greater Accountability