“This case study looks at the challenges faced in sustaining HIV prevention programmes among KAPs, implemented primarily by civil society organisations (CSO’s), as a result of the withdrawal of the Global Fund through the transition period of 2020 to 2022 and the lack of government capacity and resources to maintain the already limited services that will likely result in the re-emergence of HIV epidemics among people who inject drugs (PWID), sex workers (SW) and men who have sex with men (MSM).”
Within a changing global health landscape, a forward-looking approach is needed to anticipate tomorrow’s challenges and plan for the future. To this end, the Center for Global Development convened the Working Group on the Future of Global Health Procurement to review the evidence and formulate recommendations for how the global health community—international health organizations, their bilateral and foundation donors, and low- and middle-income countries—can ensure the medium- to long-term relevance, efficiency, quality, affordability, and security of global health procurement. Importantly, the group limited its focus to the procurement process: the journey of a health product from manufacturer to a centralized warehouse or other wholesaling facility. The downstream supply chain and delivery process—a product’s journey from warehouse to end user—was beyond the Working Group’s scope.
In the era of declining development assistance for health, transitioning externally funded programs to governments becomes a priority for donors. However, the process requires a careful approach not only to preserve the public health gains that have already been achieved but also to expand on them. In the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region, countries are expected to graduate from support from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in or before 2025. We aim to describe transition risks and identify possible means to address them.
In recent years, many global health institutions have adopted eligibility and transition frameworks for the countries they support, generating questions about how these frameworks apply in practice—and whether global health progress will be put at risk through premature or poorly planned transition processes.