Webinar May 30 2017 10:00-11:00 EST Presenters John Skibiak - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Webinar

May 30 2017 10:00-11:00 EST

Presenters

John Skibiak Michelle Weinberger Mindy Scibilia

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Agenda

• Introduction
• CGA 2016 key findings | emphasis on 69 FP2020 focus countries
• Spending on contraceptive supplies
• Number of users of each method
• Consumption quantities
• Consumption costs
• Projected gaps
• Analysis: procurement requests for 20 countries
• Questions and comments

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Context and Purpose

CGA 2016 offers new insights into contraceptive commodity consumption and future needs: method mix, quantity, and cost Data and analyses developed by many different RHSC partners were combined or sequenced to produce final report; knowledge-sharing and greater transparency encouraged CGA 2016 looks at total market – public and private sectors – and all modern contraceptive methods. It provides information for multiple audiences, including advocates, donors, manufacturers, experts, decision-makers Advisory group and stakeholder consultation provided critical guidance in shaping the CGA 2016

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Four driving questions

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

CGA 2016: Key Findings

Michelle Weinberger Senior Associate, Avenir Health

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Getting to answers with the CGA 2016

Scope

• 135 Low and Middle

Income Countries

• 69 FP2020 Focus

Countries Scenarios/Analysis

• 2014 spending on

commodities

• A: current trends

continue to 2020

• B: FP2020 goal met by

2020

• 20 country aggregate

procurement analysis from quantification reports Results

• Users (by method)
• Consumption quantities
• Cost of consumption
• Additional spending

needed Can look at additional subsets of countries– e.g. GFF Countries Can focus on specific results- e.g. look at scenarios for implant growth

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

How much is spent on contraceptive supplies, and what are the relative contributions of donors, governments of low- and middle-income countries, and individuals?

135 LMI Countries 69 FP2020 Countries

1

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

How many women will use each method of contraception in 2020, and what volume of supplies will they consume?

Results for 69 FP2020 Focus Countries

2

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

How much do the supplies consumed by all users of contraception currently cost, and how much greater will the cost be in the year 2020?

Results for 69 FP2020 Focus Countries

3

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

What contraceptive supplies funding gap can we anticipate in the year 2020?

Results for 69 FP2020 Focus Countries

4

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

If donor and government spending does not increase, what cost burden will shift to out-of-pocket expenditures by individuals?

Results for 69 FP2020 focus countries

4

• In 2014, spending by the public sector

made up 46% of the total amount spent

• n commodities
• If annual public sector spending does

not increase, the additional cost burden will shift to individuals. This means more women paying for their own contraceptives, in both absolute and relative terms.

• Under Scenario A, the public sector

would account for just 36% of total

• spending. Under Scenario B, it would

account for just 30%.

2020 Scenario A 2020 Scenario B

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Cost burden shift: 69 FP2020 focus countries

What happens if annual public sector spending on supplies remains constant at the 2014 level - $374,700,000 - from 2016 to 2020?

• Scenario A

If current trajectories continue, individual spending on contraceptive supplies must grow from $447 million in 2014 to $680 million in 2020. This is an increase of $233 million in spending by individuals in 2020 alone.

• Scenario B

To achieve the FP2020 goal without any increase in public sector funding for supplies, individual spending must grow from $447 million in 2014 to $884.5 million in 2020. This is an increase of more than $437 million in 2020 alone -- nearly double the amount individuals spent in in 2014.

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

CGA 2016: Procurement funding needs for 20 countries

Mindy Scibilia Global Family Planning Program Manager, CHAI

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Analysis: Public Sector Procurement Funding

The procurement analysis addresses a different question...

• For 20 FP2020 countries, how much funding will be needed for

public sector procurement each year from 2016 to 2020? ... So it uses different methodologies and data sources: country quantification reports and supply plans Procurement quantities differ from consumption quantities:

• Consumption quantities refer to the amount of products an

individual must consume for one year of protection from unintended pregnancy

• Procurement quantities must account not only for the products

individuals will consume but also the inventory required throughout the supply chain.

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Estimated public sector procurement funding gaps for 20 countries

Total public sector spending on supplies in 2014: Total public sector funding needed in 2016: Total public sector funding needed in 2020: $ 166 million $ 210 million Gap: $ 45 million $ 337 million Gap: $ 171 million

CONTRACEPTIVE COMMODITY GAP ANALYSIS 2016

Looking Ahead: 2017 and beyond

Coming soon:

• Interactive online data tool for CGA 2016 estimates
• Briefs on findings for subsets of countries and regions | “bespoke”

analyses by method, sector, or country grouping CGA to be updated annually:

• Refreshed data on contraceptive use
• Analysis of spending in 2015

Key point from CGA 2016: if public sector spending does not increase, a prerequisite to achieving the FP2020 goal will be the near doubling of individual out-of-pocket spending on contraceptive supplies

• CGA 2017 will examine individual spending more closely, consumer

prices as barrier to access