Implementing the Global Plan to Stop TB, 2011-2015 - optimizing allocations and the Global Fund's contributions : a scenario projections study
CITATION: Korenromp, E. L. et al. 2012. Implementing the Global Plan to Stop TB, 2011-2015 - optimizing allocations and the Global Fund's contributions : a scenario projections study. PLoS ONE, 7(6): e38816, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038816.
The original publication is available at http://journals.plos.org/plosone
Background: The Global Plan to Stop TB estimates funding required in low- and middle-income countries to achieve TB control targets set by the Stop TB Partnership within the context of the Millennium Development Goals. We estimate the contribution and impact of Global Fund investments under various scenarios of allocations across interventions and regions. Methodology/Principal Findings: Using Global Plan assumptions on expected cases and mortality, we estimate treatment costs and mortality impact for diagnosis and treatment for drug-sensitive and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), including antiretroviral treatment (ART) during DOTS for HIV-co-infected patients, for four country groups, overall and for the Global Fund investments. In 2015, China and India account for 24% of funding need, Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) for 33%, sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for 20%, and other low- and middle-income countries for 24%. Scale-up of MDR-TB treatment, especially in EECA, drives an increasing global TB funding need – an essential investment to contain the mortality burden associated with MDR-TB and future disease costs. Funding needs rise fastest in SSA, reflecting increasing coverage need of improved TB/HIV management, which saves most lives per dollar spent in the short term. The Global Fund is expected to finance 8–12% of Global Plan implementation costs annually. Lives saved through Global Fund TB support within the available funding envelope could increase 37% if allocations shifted from current regional demand patterns to a prioritized scale-up of improved TB/HIV treatment and secondly DOTS, both mainly in Africa − with EECA region, which has disproportionately high per-patient costs, funded from alternative resources. Conclusions/Significance: These findings, alongside country funding gaps, domestic funding and implementation capacity and equity considerations, should inform strategies and policies for international donors, national governments and disease control programs to implement a more optimal investment approach focusing on highest-impact populations and interventions.