A case study commissioned by the Health Systems Knowledge Network. Hon. Blessing Chebundo [MP] Zimbabwe

Transcription

1 The Zimbabwe Re-engineered Budget Process, And The Impact Of Its All Stakeholder Inclusiveness Approach, And How The Involvement Of EQUINET And Other Stakeholders Contributes Towards Achieving Equitable Distribution Of Health Resources A case study commissioned by the Health Systems Knowledge Network Hon. Blessing Chebundo [MP] Zimbabwe March

2 Background to the Health Systems Knowledge Network The Health Systems Knowledge Network was appointed by the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health from September 2005 to March It was made up of 14 policy-makers, academics and members of civil society from all around the world, each with his or her own area of expertise. The network engaged with other components of the Commission (see and also commissioned a number of systematic reviews and case studies (see The Centre for Health Policy led the consortium appointed as the organisational hub of the network. The other consortium partners were EQUINET, a Southern and Eastern African network devoted to promoting health equity ( and the Health Policy Unit of the London School of Hygiene in the United Kingdom ( The Commission itself is a global strategic mechanism to improve equity in health and health care through action on the social of determinants of health at global, regional and country level. 2

3 This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, and undertaken as work for the Health Systems Knowledge Network established as part of the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. The paper was carried out in co-operation with the Regional Network for Equity in Health in east and southern Africa (EQUINET)and SEAPACOH (Southern and East African Parliamentary Alliance of Committees of Health for Equity in Health. The views presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of IRDC, WHO, Commissioners, the Health Systems Knowledge Network, EQUINET, SEAPACOH or the reviewers. This paper is not a formal EQUINET or SEAPACOH discussion paper. 3

4 Table Of Contents Acknowledgement List Of Acronyms 1. Overview 2. Introduction, and Context 3. Schedule Of The Re-engineered Budget Process 3.1 Budget Formulation 3.2 Budget Analysis 3.3 Budget Monitoring 4. Lessons Learnt 5. Conclusions 6. References 4

5 I would like to thank the Centre for Health Policy, and the Commission for Social Determinants for health [CSDH], Health Systems Knowledge Networks, of the World Health Organization for the trust shown in awarding me the contract to write this CASE STUDY. I would also want to thank Dr R Loewenson for Reviewing this CASE STUDY, and Jane Doherty and Lucy Gilson for facilitating the study. Without them, it could not have been a complete document. However, any shortcomings of this Case Study remain my own responsibility. This paper was reviewed by at least one reviewer from within the Health Systems Knowledge Network and one external reviewer. Thanks are due to these reviewers for their advice on additional sources of information, different analytical perspectives and assistance in clarifying key messages. 5

6 ACRONYMS AIDS BFED CSDH CSO GEGA - Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome - Budget, Finance and Economic Development Committee - WHO s Commission of Social Determinants of Health - Civil Society Organizations - Global Equity Gauge Alliance EQUINET The Southern and East Africa Regional networks for Equity in Health PAC PLC M o H KN P/C - Public Accounts Committee - Parliamentary Legal Committee - Ministry of Health and Child Welfare - Health Systems Knowledge Networks [of CSDH] - Portfolio Committee SUNNY - State University of New York SADCC - Southern Africa Development Coordination Community SADC UNDP - Southern Africa Development Community - United Nation Developmental Program VHW - Village Health Worker WHO - World Health Organisation 6

7 !""" $ % & ' ()* * +, +-&./ $)

8 * ) )., 4*4 ).! 4567"!""" " 93 )/ ) 8 )'.8 * /: 9 )* ) ;,4 )) 8

9 %/ <. / 3 ; )= < %. ;3 4 44& %> %567" )?+8&?4%&8*&8%4&8% 4443 & 9

10 @ %/ 3 24( (2 2 / 22 2) $2()$ 2* & A &/ * // &2 *5"B2* 4 )4%8*8 <4%8** 4%(4 %+& /<3%8* 4 10

11 2 566" 2?4C6?4C!DE(2:) ) &/ '0&/'1 ()0(1, +4% /<3% 8 & 4%-04%1 4 < % /*4 566"< % 29 *?0 *?1%E4 /04%F 566" - < 566" *? 11

12 2). ) % )% ) '!""" < 292 8<) 3 &!""". A!""" 567" 3. ) :-- < *. A 12

13 4/A4 /A/A' 8/4!""" */ */ 2*22&$%&84( * &4 %* 9*9 *% ;4:*= 4)2% 3 /8. * < $%&! '& ( )! %% <G H H H $)! '! 13

14 '/*9/ ' / ) )/ 4) <A?+8?4%&8.@* < '.4?++I?4%&8?+8. *2*() *4 (%,A2&$ %&84<A* (),2 829%A&2 &@+,:4%'%&84J?&+A%4*A2 % <+ : ))2&$ %&84* 14

15 (4? +I)04?++I1', &)9. % 4+ %/ 2 (*(,2 +2 +) < (4*0%4*1* '' '3 ( 2 %) (J?&+) ))!""5;)= < 4) 8D 2* <.4!""5J?&+%4**(,2 15

16 ) G 5* < 3 () <)@ 2 3-)!* 2* *2!""" D% ; 3,= J?&+,,%/ 2 3 %+),< / % / ); )= 16

17 ''!""D*4)/ G 2&$%&844& / * +* /* *021 8 &- / 2 &%@43/ %)< )) %/ -+ 2 < '8* * 8 32 % 17

18 . - - ;- = :2 7KLM H 5NL2 566"6L!""N5DL!""N &!""! 2 **4 +82&$%&84 + C!K 2&$%&84 $2()M$2(H4,566" %+ &/%I*%+?4 4 %&+8%&+* 248 < + %/24 -/@2+ &

19 ' ))/ 23 / 2 ;)= 2 )3 % / '8O) )O < /E ) $ )! -%% G +:@+ )3 2 /' )/ - / 3 %))? -) ) 19

20 2 3, % )). 3- ) 4 & - < 8D"" $$)! :-... ** < E) :3 3 -) 20

21 2/ 3 )'.!""D!""P*(, %* %)M'H % +/ )./0/ % ) ) )< < ;3 <) = 21

22 / 2 ) Government tries as much as possible to remain within their Health budget tracks when they are aware that their expenditures will be scrutinized by the public. 1!% 2 ;/= 3 2 ' % 3"45050"04/06444" 7(888 )9:7;&00/9"9 0< ==( ==2 "/"6&0)9:7 ==$ %0>9""//)9:""" 7 ==1?! 5"('0"'"/0/@"/: 22