50 likes | 61 Views
This session aims to develop compelling arguments for national governments and donors on the crucial need for more funding towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in Africa. The session will focus on generating insights on future resource allocation for UHC, emphasizing the role of domestic resources and the importance of achieving better health outcomes to leverage further investments in UHC. The methodology includes brief presentations, group work, and the creation of a comprehensive argumentation paper for dissemination among stakeholders.
E N D
Towards UHC in the African Region – How to argue for “more” money?
Overall Scope of the Session Develop a set of arguments for national governments (MOF) and donors, why and how funding of UHC through domestic resources is needed more than ever Objectives of the Session • 1. Provide overview of resources generated for health based 3 input presentations to encourage thinking around: • Where should resources for UHC come from in the future? • What is the role of domestic resources? Do they have to increase? • How can “better results” convince governments and donors to further invest in SHP/UHC? • 2. Collect arguments in favor of prioritizing investment into UHC directed at convincing partner country governments and donors
Methodology • 1. Brief presentations (30 min): • Introductorypresentation: Kai Straehler-Pohl (P4H Sector Programme) • Country presentation Tanzania: Dr. Gemini Mtei (IHI Tanzania) • Country presentation Burundi: Simin Schahbazi (GIZ Burundi) • 2. Group work, facilitated by country presenters – arguing the case for more resources to UHC - (1h) • 3. Final output: • A generic “catalogue” of arguments to be compiled from session input and presented to the WG SHP & HF (Friday) • Develop an argumentation paper for dissemination among programmes and further
Guidance for the Group Work • 1. Collect a set of arguments for increased domestic resources directed at national decision makers (MOF). • 2. How do you direct same arguments at donors? • 3. How would the arguments have to be adapted to specific country contexts?