Amjad Al Khawam
Annet Kisakye
Simon Kaddu Ssentamu
Alex AdjagbaEmmanuel Tenywa’s Updates
COUNTRY OF FOCUS: UGANDA
Uganda: Invest in a coherent planning cycle, with strategic, comprehensive, Multi-year and operational annual plans outlining and coordinating strategies and activities, which are monitored quarterly
Country of Focus –Uganda
Transformative Investment:
Invest in ensuring that sufficient and adequately appropriated funds reach the operational level of the program regularly
Strategies
1. Develop and update costed cMYPs.
2. Use costing and benefit of immunization information in the cMYP for advocacy
3. Develop and Budget for an operational annual EPI plan of action
4. Plan efficient vaccination services at district level
5. Monitor the implementation and expenditure of all plans
6. Create and maintain a national immunization planning cycle by linking national health plans , cMYPs, annual plans of action and quarterly monitoring of plans
7. Track the service delivery expenditure and short falls at all level
Three prioritized strategies
1. Develop and update costed cMYPs.
2. Develop and Budget for an operational annual EPI plan of action
3. Track the service delivery expenditure and short falls at all level
Comment
Uganda is struggling to improve and sustain the immunization coverage to the required level at the district, national, regional and global level. The choice of this transformative investment is that I think it makes attempt of collating efforts from the other 8 transformative investment as all them are quite relevant, its good practice to put transformative investments and their strategies and activities into an action plan and this then gets into our cMYP and annual plan that can encamps all the other transformative investments and strategies.
The choice of the prioritized strategies is based on the what must be done to ensure that work is done and monitored, we must develop the cMYP and cost it, and from the cMYP countries should have annual work plans drawn from the comprehensive plans and these should be aligned to the national and regional plans and finally we need to take account of what service we are able to deliver and at what cost and we identify any obstacles like budget deficits.
Thanks for the good comments but I give an example of SIA, NVI among others these will have funds and activities will be implemented but look at service delivery like microplanning, outreaches there is no dedicated budget?
Dear Emmanuel
thabnks for your response. enlightening.
So how are you planning to address the funding issue?
what I don't understand is is the issue the availabilituy of funds in treasury or issue with funding flow?
I wish we can discuss this TI more lively
bye for now
Alex Ajagba
Thank you Alex for the interest shown in this TI, as stated above there is a good CMYP that is developed by all EPI stakeholders and the costing is usually done by the health economist who have the knowledge in the costing tool. the Uganda challenge is that the planning is purely Top to bottom as we do not start from down to get their involvement, secondary the HF and district microplan or health plans are not available (no linkage of the lower planning where it exists with the National) as such facilities are gumbling with how to get fund (current funds are 40% of the required) so how do you prioritise on which activity to spend on etc
Dear Emmnanuel
To my knowledge, Uganda has a good experience developing cMYP over the years. Is the rational of your choice of TI based on the failures and issues that you noted on cMYP? are you directly involved in the development of such document in Uganda? if you do, could you elaborate on what you think is the problem with that approach and the way costs are being calculated.
by the way, if you could elaborate on who does the costing? what are the stakeholders involved in the development and how the process can be improved, in order to reach the obtjectives you are fixing here.
I would very much like to discuss your lessons learned since I picked the same TI.
thank you
Alex