The data provided through the GAVI Financial Sustainability Plan process is based on methodologies, tools and standardized reporting tables developed by the GAVI Financing Task Force for the unique purpose of helping countries develop a FSP for their National Immunization Programme.
The methods find their basis from WHO's official costing guidelines (1979) and Creese A. and Parker D. At times, the FSP methods deviate from standard ones in an attempt to facilitate the data collection and analysis work for countries. While sacrifices were made in terms of technical rigour and sophistication, the FSP methods promote a common approach and are thorough enough to guarantee quality information for the FSP at the same time as ensuring country ownership in the process of generating it.
To help countries determine the past costing and financing of their National Immunization Programme and make projections of future costs, future resource requirements, financing and gaps, a computer based costing, financing and gap tool was developed along with some written guidelines.
The tools use two methods when costing and projecting future resource requirements of a NIP.
- The first method is know as the “ingredient approach” and where the value of inputs are based on quantities and unit prices (the ingredients). Since vaccines, injection supplies, personnel, transport, vehicles, cold chain equipment will account for the bulk of the cost/resource requirements of a National Immunization Programme (at least 80% of the total) considerable emphasis is given to assessing these inputs accurately, otherwise small inaccuracies can translate into a large over or underestimations of the estimations.
- For other categories of inputs that are not major cost drivers of a National Immunization Programme (e.g. training, social mobilization, information-education-communication, surveillance and others), the ingredient approach is not used. Instead, approximations are made using past spending on these inputs and is a method that is likely to yield estimates that are as accurate as applying a more complicated ingredient approach method. And it has the advantage of requiring less data inputs.
The suggested method for the treatment of capital cost is a simple straight line depreciations - the value of the equipment new is divided by its number of useful life years (ULY).
The methodologies require that all programme specific costs be calculated . Thought these are not required, the tool and written guidelines provide methods for estimating shared costs.
In addition to the recommended methodologies, the information is reported in a standardized way using two sets of data tables. The set of tables developed for the FSP were largely inspired from those recommended in the USAID PHR+ - Abt Associates Immunization Financing Tool by Kaddar M, Makinen M, Khan M.
The same framework is kept for all tables where costs are classified according to the types of input or cost categories (e.g. vaccines, supplies, personnel, etc.), the strategies (NIP, routine or campaigns), and who is contributing to them or the financing sources (e.g. national government, international donors, etc.).
- The first set of tables is used to report baseline (pre-VF year) and current (VF year) levels of spending, capturing the relative shares of financing from different sources, and identifying which cost components of the immunization programme are supported by each funding source.
- The second set of tables report the estimated resource requirements needed to sustain the programme in the short and medium term, as well as those associated with the changes in immunization schedules, population growth, the expansion of coverage and other programmatic objectives and anticipated changes. The tables also report available funding for the near term (remaining VF years) and the years after conclusion of the current commitment from the Vaccine Fund (post VF period), by source and programme component. The idea is to subtract the estimated funds available from the estimated costs over the corresponding periods. The result is a projected funding gap—the amount that would be required for programme expansion and improvement as articulated in the multi-year plan for immunization, but for which funding sources and amounts have not yet been confirmed.