Ambitions and realities: Are Global Fund investments designed to achieve resilient and sustainable systems for health? Findings from the Global Fund Prospective Country Evaluation

PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 Nov 14;4(11):e0003914. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003914. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Strengthening resilient and sustainable systems for health (RSSH) is central to the Global Fund's strategy, however questions persist about the Global Fund's role in the health systems strengthening space, and the extent to which investments are designed to achieve strengthening objectives, or just fill in gaps in the system. This paper reports on findings from the Prospective Country Evaluations (PCE), a multi-country multi-year evaluation of Global Fund support. We adapted a framework from Chee et al. (2013) to assess whether Global Fund investments were designed to strengthen or support the health system. Per this framework, 'systems support' refers to improvements in health systems functioning primarily driven by increases in inputs, whereas 'systems strengthening' refers to activities that drive changes in how the health system operates (often related to policies, regulations, governance structures, behavior change, and resource optimization). In the 2017 and 2019 funding cycles, we found that despite calls from the Global Fund to invest more strategically to strengthen health systems, a high proportion of RSSH funding was directed toward activities that support the health system. Factors underlying this pattern include limitations imposed by the three-year grant cycle, a lack of clear guidance on how to design strengthening investments, a persistent need for funding to address input gaps, and minimal feedback during the funding request process related to RSSH design. For the Global Fund, and indeed other global health initiatives, to contribute to sustained strengthening of health systems, is likely to require enhanced guidance and technical assistance, as well as improved measurement of outputs and outcomes.

Grants and funding

The Global Fund PCE was commissioned in 2017 by the Global Fund's Technical Evaluation Reference Group (TERG), an independent evaluation advisory group that assessed and reported on the monitoring and evaluation work conducted by the Global Fund Secretariat, and all authors included in this manuscript were supported financially by the Global Fund PCE grant (TGF-16-144). Members of the Global Fund TERG provided input on the study design, framing of the evaluation questions, and reviewed this manuscript, however, the views in this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the TERG or of the Global Fund Secretariat.