OIG audit of Global Fund grants to Myanmar reveals gaps in service delivery and supply chain management despite good results in other areas
Myanmar has made significant progress in its fight against HIV, TB and malaria, thanks in part to increased financial commitments from the government and initiatives to extend health care coverage. At the same time, there are gaps in service delivery and issues related to supply chain management.
The initial draft of the concept note that Zimbabwe was planning to submit to the Global Fund included funding for studies on the population sizes of sex workers and men who have sex with men (MSM), but did not include specific interventions that could address the needs of these groups while the data were being collected.
The Global Fund Board has approved funding for five concept notes submitted by three early applicants in the transition phase of the new funding model (NFM). The three countries involved are Myanmar, El Salvador and Zimbabwe. Total approved funding was up to $449.8 million. The Board approved the funding by electronic vote. The decision was made public on 15 June. These constitute the first funding approvals for early applicants.
When the Global Fund Board approved early applicant funding for Myanmar for all three diseases (see first article in this newsletter), it also approved funding for the renewal of existing grants for these diseases. The total funding approved for Myanmar is shown in the following table:
The country dialogues and the process of developing concept notes in three early applicant countries shared some common characteristics, but also differed in many respects.
The Global Fund is encouraging Myanmar to ask for some new money in its request for continued funding for its two HIV grants, in order to permit a faster scale-up of antiretroviral treatment (ART). The encouragement came following a visit to Myanmar by General Manager Gabriel Jaramillo in August 2012.
The Global Fund has terminated its three grants to Myanmar (Burma), because it has concluded that political restrictions imposed by the government mean that the grants "cannot be managed in a way that ensures effective program implementation."