Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 19 Rue Bergère, 75009 Paris, France.
Health Policy Plan. 2018 Apr 1;33(3):335-344. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czx186.
The independent Technical Review Panel (TRP) of the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a unique mechanism to review funding proposals and to provide recommendations on their funding. Its functioning and performance have received little attention in the scientific literature. We aimed to identify predictors for TRP recommendations, whether these were in line with the Global Fund's ambition to give priority to countries most in need, and whether they correlated with grant performance. We combined data on proposals and applications under the Rolling Continuation Channel, TRP recommendations and grant implementation during the rounds-based mechanism (2002-2010) with country characteristics. Ordered logistic and OLS regressions were used to identify predictors for per-capita funding requests, TRP recommendations, Global Fund funding and grant performance ratings. We tested for financial suppression of large funding proposals and whether fragile or English-speaking countries performed differently from other countries. We found that funding requests and TRP recommendations were consistent with disease burden, but independent of other country characteristics. Countries with larger populations requested less funding per capita, but there is no evidence of financial suppression by the TRP. Proposals from fragile countries were as likely to be recommended as proposals from other countries, and resulting grants performed equally well except for lower performance of HIV/AIDS grants. English-speaking countries obtained more funding for TB and malaria than other countries. In conclusion, the independent TRP acted in line with the guiding principles of the Global Fund to direct funding to countries most in need without ex ante country allocation. The Global Fund appears to have promoted learning on how to design and implement large-scale programs in fragile and non-fragile countries. Other pooled financing mechanisms may consider TRP operating principles to generate high-quality demand, to promote learning and to direct resources to countries most in need.
全球抗击艾滋病、结核病和疟疾基金独立技术审查小组（TRP）是一个独特的机制，用于审查供资提案并就供资问题提出建议。其运作和绩效在科学文献中很少受到关注。我们旨在确定 TRP 建议的预测因素，这些建议是否符合全球基金优先考虑最需要国家的目标，以及它们是否与赠款绩效相关。我们将滚动延续渠道下的提案和申请、TRP 建议以及基于回合的机制（2002-2010 年）期间的赠款执行情况与国家特征相结合。我们使用有序逻辑回归和 OLS 回归来确定人均资金申请、TRP 建议、全球基金资金和赠款绩效评级的预测因素。我们测试了对大型供资提案的资金抑制作用，以及脆弱或英语国家与其他国家的表现是否不同。我们发现，供资请求和 TRP 建议与疾病负担一致，但与其他国家特征无关。人口较多的国家人均申请的资金较少，但 TRP 没有证据表明存在资金抑制。脆弱国家的提案与其他国家的提案一样有可能被推荐，并且除了艾滋病毒/艾滋病赠款的绩效较低之外，所产生的赠款绩效同样良好。英语国家在结核病和疟疾方面获得的资金多于其他国家。总之，独立的 TRP 按照全球基金的指导原则行事，将资金引导到最需要的国家，而无需事先进行国家分配。全球基金似乎促进了在脆弱和非脆弱国家设计和实施大规模项目的学习。其他集合融资机制可能会考虑 TRP 的运作原则，以产生高质量的需求，促进学习，并将资源引导到最需要的国家。
