1
Technical Working Group on Health Systems Assessment
LINKING HEALTH SYSTEMS ASSESMENTS TO PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS
Meeting Report from the second face-to-face meeting
6-7 November 2018, Geneva, Switzerland
2
1. INTRODUCTION
The UHC2030 technical working group (TWG) on Health Systems Assessment (HSA) was
formally constituted in 2017 with the rationale of jointly studying the various HSA approaches to
find a way to harmonize and align them. The impetus to do so was the acknowledgement that many
countries, especially aid-dependent ones, were faced with a growing burden of multiple and
sometimes contradictory HSAs, with high transaction costs, and low usage of results.
A review of existing HSA tools was then conducted to gain insight into the various approaches
used to assess a health system, and the objectives behind such processes. It became increasingly
clear that an analysis of health systems performance was more unevenly done in countries, and
that large-scale whole-of-sector performance analyses were more institutionalized in higher-
income countries.
The TWG, through its diverse country and institutional membership, saw its value-add to not only
harmonize and align HSA approaches but also create a more explicit link between HSA data and
health systems performance.
The terms of reference of the TWG are as follows:
Deliverable 1: Development of a recommended UHC2030 annotated template to conduct health
systems (performance) assessments, including taxonomy, working definitions, a set of core
indicators.
Deliverable 2: Development of UHC2030 process guidance on HS(P)A, integrating performance
assessment and based on the principles of country ownership and leadership.
Deliverable 3: Development of a UHC2030 knowledge platform around HS(P)A and support to
cross-country learning.
Deliverable 4: Advocacy to gain stakeholder buy-in on UHC2030 TWG deliverables to promote
a more accountable HS(P)A environment.
This report reflects discussions at the 2nd face-to-face HSA TWG meeting which took place on 6-
7 November 2018 in Geneva. The main objective of the meeting was to make progress on
deliverable 1. Currently, the task at hand is to link the HSA tool content to an assessment of
systems performance. The 2nd face-to-face meeting discussed a proposed common approach to
HS(P)A, which reorganizes and simplifies that draft taxonomy into four health systems functions
and related sub-functions, while proposing explicitly linking these to intermediate goals and health
system goals.
The primary objective of the 2nd TWG face-to-face meeting was to discuss the development of
the proposed HSA-to-HSPA approach, reflect on the merits and potential challenges of the
functions and sub-functions approach, examine the appropriateness and suitability of proposed sub
functions and consider potential indicators for assessment, and agree on next steps for this work.
Expected outcomes of the meeting:
• agreement on the approach to effectively link health systems assessments with an analysis
of systems performance
3
• agreement on how to organize the TWG into sub-groups to take forward the analysis of
health systems functions and sub-functions
• agreement on the way forward for the draft annotated template to conduct health systems
(performance) assessments
Box 1. Membership of the working group
• International Health Partnership for UHC2030 hosting organizations:
o WHO (country offices, regional offices, headquarters)
o WB
• Countries: Belgium, Gabon, Guinea, Hungary, India, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Thailand,
Turkey
• Bilateral: AFD, DFID, European Commission, GIZ, OECD, UNICEF, USAID, others
• European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
• Global health initiatives: Gavi Alliance, Global Fund
• Philanthropic organisations: Gates Foundation
• Consultancy: Abt. Associates
• Civil Society: IPPF; Family Health International (FHI360); Action Contre la Faim
4
2. REPORT ON MEETING
This report is meant to reflect discussions by the TWG on the 4 functions of health systems, as
described below. The time allotted to the working groups was not sufficient for a thorough
reflection on the issues at hand but did allow for an initial orienting brainstorming to direct further
technical work by the Secretariat as well as future TWG online discussions.
The information as presented below is not meant to be seen as a final product of the TWG. The
exchanges which took place at the meeting, as described here, do not necessarily represent a
consensus decision – in fact, no final decision per se was taken but the information below will be
very useful to point towards further areas of necessary background research to be presented to the
TWG in 2019 for discussion.
2.1 HEALTH SYSTEMS FUNCTIONS AND SUB-FUNCTIONS: DEFINITIONS AND
CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
This session was introduced with a presentation which described the aim of a proposed common
HS(P)A approach, and its development. The overarching aim is to
synthesize a harmonized, basic but comprehensive (i.e. covering all key aspects) method
for health system assessment, which focusses on the evaluation of the performance of
health system functions and agents / organisations responsible for carrying them out, and
identifies specific areas, which undermine or strengthen the achievement of health system
goals.
It introduced four overarching functions and a set of proposed sub-functions as a way to link health
systems assessment and health systems performance assessment. The proposed sub-functions
were formulated to provide a starting point for subsequent working group discussions and were
not meant to be prescriptive. In principle, they were supposed to be questioned and, if needed,
changed.
The presentation reflected on the reasoning for a ‘functions’ approach as a guiding principle for
the TWG, highlighting that it:
• facilitates alignment of HSA with the aims of performance assessment: the definition of
(health system) function is closely aligned with the process of evaluating the attainment of
health system goals (performance)
• reduces inconsistencies in terminology and concepts: different HSA tools use the
underlying notion of ‘function’ (e.g. ‘financing function’)
• reduces complexity and overlaps: the proposed four core distinct functions include sub-
functions and assessment areas which cover all high-level health system objectives
The further identification of ‘sub-functions’ then allows for explicitly linking health systems
assessment to performance measurement, with the definition of sub-functions to be guided by a
set of criteria as follows:
Reflect and are a logical
(preferably self-contained
/complementary) components of the
core functions;
Assign accountability for
actions/processes to a specific actor
within the health system;
5
Key discussion points / points of reflection were:
• There was general agreement on testing the functions to performance approach as a way
to make health systems strengthening actionable.
• The functions approach was seen to be more dynamic compared to a more static ‘building
blocks’ approach; can link more easily to outcome/performance.
• The ‘building blocks’ approach remains an important principle in many countries:
Ministries / Departments of Health are often organised around health system building
blocks, as are national health strategies.
• Given the continued relevance on the building blocks approach, the proposed ‘functions’
approach for HS(P)A should ensure that the building blocks are captured appropriately
• The HS(P)A approach should support countries in identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of their systems and so inform policy development and action.
• Comparability across countries is not the primary objective at country level although a
common approach should facilitate comparison to enable cross-country learning.
• The HS(P)A approach should be able to draw on (existing) in-country information and
data to assess performance. The main goal is very much a national objective
• There was general agreement on the proposed criteria for selecting the sub-functions,
however the objectives for the sub-functions should also be considered, with suggestions
from the TWG for criteria encouraged as the work progresses.
• Level of granularity on sub-functions will be an important decision to take while
progressing with the template.
• Identification of indicators and linking them to each function and sub-function will be
discussed at a later stage
• It was suggested that once agreement has been achieved on the functions and sub-
functions, the TWG would need to reflect further on better defining intermediate goals
and final goals
• There was also a more general suggestion that root cause analysis should be a part of the
HSA-HSPA continuum
2.2 REFLECTIONS AND LINKAGES BETWEEN HEALTH SYSTEMS FUNCTIONS
AND SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE: CASE STUDIES
The aim of this session was to take the audience step by step through the logical sequence from a
health system function and sub-function towards quantitative indicators and qualitative
information on performance. Two case studies were presented to illustrate linkages between health
systems functions and performance.
Expressed as specific actions,
conductive to the achievement of the
high-level health system goals;
Can be described or measured,
monitored and assessed in relation to
the high level goals;
6
The first case study focused on understanding and assessing coverage, which is often linked to the
function of health financing but affects almost all potential intermediate goals (efficiency, access,
equity in use, effectiveness, quality, safety, satisfaction) and also potential final health system
goals (i.e. financial protection).
A second case study offered an example of coordinating diabetes care in Slovenia between primary
and secondary level. This was an operational illustration on how to understand and assess service
delivery as a health system function, using a qualitive inquiry approach.
Key discussion points / points of reflection:
• Coverage:
o There is a major focus on assessing coverage globally given the links with the
SDGs and UHC agenda and the number of indicators available at global level.
However, coverage is a cross cutting issue among all other functions, and there
was a suggestion whether it might be better placed as an intermediate health
system goal.
o There is a need for a clear terminology to avoid confusion between means and
ends, having in mind two distinct outcomes:
1) final outcomes (health systems performance dimensions)
2) intermediate outcomes (where coverage could be placed)
• Service delivery
o Service delivery is a function but could also be conceptualized as an ‘outcome’
of the other three functions, which requires further reflection.
2.3 TAXONOMY: HOW CAN WE MAKE ITS CONTENT USEFUL FOR
PERFORMANCE?
Work undertaken by the TWG in 2017 brought together the content of all 7 reviewed HSA tools
into a single Excle file with the objective of comparing and contrasting the different subject areas
assessed by each tool. This file’s content, dubbed ‘taxonomy’, was originally organized according
to the structure of the tools themselves, namely according to building blocks.
TWG teleconferences leading up to the 2
nd
Face to Face Meeting evinced a need to re-structure
the taxonomy along the lines of health systems functions. The taxonomy information for each
function formed the basis of the ensuing working group discussions.
The working groups were asked to cover, as far as possible, the following topics:
• Preliminary findings and results (do you agree to those functions, do you have new ones,
where should they be placed)
• Challenges
• Possible ideas
7
• Open questions
• Support that might be needed for next steps
2.4 WORKING GROUPS TO EXAMINE SUB-FUNCTIONS (AND INDICATORS)
UNDER EACH HEALTH SYSTEM FUNCTION
Each working group presented preliminary findings, unresolved questions, and challenges in
identifying common patterns and grouping information coherently. Major aspects and points of
discussion are summarized below according to each function. All of the below-mentioned issues
will be further re-examined by the TWG Secretariat and fed back to the TWG in teleconferences
planned for the 1
st
quarter of 2019.
Governance/Stewardship
The variety of co-existing terms and definitions was highlighted, with different working group
members preferring different terminology based on institutional affiliation and habit. Further
challenges go back to the cross-cutting nature of this function, and potential links to other functions,
such as service delivery and financing.
The working group agreed that the governance/stewardship function should cover both the system
level and the institutional level. It was agreed that the general system level governance functions
would be under this function but each one of the other 3 functions would also include more specific
governance questions. It would be important to cross-link between them.
As to the sub-functions, the following were proposed. Again, the usual caveat applies that these
were simply discussed by the group in this initial brainstorming session but is not meant to
represent any final TWG decision.
1. Setting strategic direction: policy formulation (i.e. strategic plans, guidelines, …)
2. Participation (i.e. consensus-building, coordination, collaboration, partnerships, …)
3. Legislation
4. Regulation
5. Generating the use of intelligence (i.e. performance review, monitoring and evaluation)
6. Architecture of the health system (including decentralization, where applicable) and
institutional design (i.e. governance of the public private mix)
7. Functional management capacity (i.e. budget, human resources – day to day)
8. Transformation capacity (i.e. leadership – at a more global level)
9. Intersectoral collaboration (i.e. across ministries and topic)
8
Franz Von Roenne: Senior Advisor Strategy, Sector Initiative Universal Health Coverage – UHC Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Geneva, 6 November 2018, UHC2030 HSA TWG Second Face to Face Meeting. Sketch illustrates the cross cutting nature
of Governance in relation to other Health Systems Functions.
One public health lawyer in the group had a very strong view that the legislation function and the
regulation function should be separated out. The rationale is that legislation (by passing a law)
supports the creation of enabling environments, while regulation is about changing behaviours in
the system and does not only refer to legislation. Many of the other governance working group
members felt that the 2 functions should be grouped together. This issue remains unresolved.
Meanwhile, functional management capacity and transformation capacity shall address operational
aspects with regards to implementation. The discussion further raised the importance of integrating
issues around decentralization. Finally, accountability and coverage have been considered as
intermediate goals and should therefore not be regarded as a sub-function.
Health Financing
The working group on health financing proposed the following sub-functions.
1. Collecting revenues
2. Pooling
3. Purchasing services
It was suggested to provide for each sub-function a description of formal structures and
mechanisms that are currently in place and aspects that enable an effective functioning alike.
Concerning pooling, it was suggested to rename ‘pooling of funds’ to ‘pooling of health risks’ to
avoid confusion with financial risks. During discussions, a proposition was made to add another
9
sub-function, to explicitly make the case for ‘investments’ in health; however, group members
argued that this could also be part of the purchasing sub-function or added to the
governance/stewardship function.
With regards to intermediate goals, it was suggested that providing coverage should be
considered as an objective and outcome of the overall financing function rather than a sub-
function in itself. Ensuing discussions considered how coverage and the formulation of a benefit
package for example should be best conceptualized and there is a clear need for further
developmental work on this issue. There was also a discussion on user charges: generally it was
agreed that these should be part of the financing function, but the group did not clearly assign to
which sub-function they belong. Consultations with health financing experts at WHO and
collaborating institutions was strongly advised in this matter. On the other hand, there was
general consensus for financial protection as an final goalof the health system.
Generating resources
First of all, the group decided to rename the function – going from ‘creating resources’ to
‘generating resources’. It was felt that the previous term might have provoked confusion due to
its potential financing connotation.
As to the sub-functions, the following were proposed:
1. Health workforce
2. Physical resources (i.e. pharmaceuticals, equipment, infrastructure (incl. labs)
3. Information (technology) system
4. Social resources
Besides health workforce and physical resources, which were already part of the draft taxonomy,
two additional sub-functions were proposed. With regards to information systems, it was pointed
out that there is need for further clarity regarding which aspects should be covered under this
sub-function and what is more appropriate under the service delivery function. Social resources
refer to a broad spectrum of care which is not yet covered under the formal health workforce
sub-function. This could potentially include informal care, long term care, and community
support (both internal and external). Further research in this regard is suggested to gain a better
understanding also referred to the potential measurement of such.
In addition, the group went one step further and discussed potential detailed sub-functions or
sub-sub functions. The following were proposed:
- Availability
- Appropriate mix / skill-mix
- Planning & sustainability
- Continuing education (applicable only for the health workforce sub-function)
10
Service delivery
There was a considerable discussion on how the service delivery function could best be understood,
given that it very much presents an outcome of the governance, financing and resource generation
functions. At the same time, there was agreement that delivering services is a fundamental function
of any health system. The group discussed different ways of thinking about service delivery
subfunctions, e.g.
• By sector / organizational arrangement (e.g. public health services, primary care, specialised
care, etc.)
• By population / disease area (e.g. MNCH, HIV/AIDS, malaria, diabetes, etc)
• By type of intervention / service (e.g. intersectoral, public health measures, prevention,
diagnosis etc)
It was suggested that a matrix approach that combined these different considerations might most
be more appropriate to capture the service ‘function’ which would also allow capturing the
relationship between levels of care. Such a matrix approach could consist of two main dimensions:
1. Level of care: households/community; first level; second level; third level; etc.
2. Performance dimension: responsibility and oversight; services provided; functionality;
access and coverage; quality; etc.
There was agreement that the precise nature of different dimensions required further specification,
which should also reflect the overall patient journey across the system. This would also need to
consider the pharmaceutical system, along with linkages to the other three functions.
2.5 DEEP DIVE EXAMPLE: INTEGRATING A FOCUS ON ANIT-CORRUPTION,
TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCTOUNATBILITY (ACTA) INTO HSAs
This session introduced WHO’s current work to analyse vulnerabilities in corruption, transparency,
and accountability in the health sector. The aim was to raise awareness on a practical deep dive
example and how a link can be drawn to the governance stewardship (and other) functions of the
HSAs. Boundaries need to be clarified between in-depth analyses of a specific health system topic
(such as anti-corruption, transparency and accountability) and an overarching sector assessment.
2.6 COUNTRY PANEL ON POLICY RELEVANCE: HOW HAVE HS(P)A RESULTS
BEEN USED IN COUNTRIES FOR POLICY-MAKING TO DATE?
The country panel was presented by representatives from Belgium, Ghana, Nigeria and Turkey.
Key takeaways from the presentation and ensuing discussion:
• Throughout all country experience the importance of policy relevance was emphasized to
make health system assessment actionable. The potential role of champions was
highlighted to lead the process.
11
• The Belgium HSPA experience highlighted the importance of independent nature of the
exercise as a critical element, while in the case of Turkey a clear link to the government
and the Ministry of Health was needed to have impact in policy formulation
• Nigeria is a perfect example for a country which is very diverse across states. A top down
approach from the national to the state levels has not yielded desired results, as shown from
past experiences. Decentralization and context diversity needs to be taken into
consideration. A bottom up approach is hence necessary while at the same time capacity
building at state levels is required so that the health framework can be adapted to each state
context.
• Conducting an HS(P)A alone will not put health priorities on the political agenda. As
shown in Ghana, a health summit helps to finalize the HSAs with agencies and districts.
Based on this, an aid memoire is developed and disseminated across the country to gain
broad buy-in. A half-year review of the aid memoire allows for monitoring and evaluating
the progress made so far towards set goals.
2.7 LINKING IT ALL BACK TOGETHER AND NEXT STEPS
This session served to bring together everything discussed until this point at the 2
nd
face-to-face
meeting, i.e., the inductive-deductive approach to developing health systems sub-functions and
performance indicators, while keeping policy relevance of HSPA in clear focus.
Discussions emphasized the importance of analysing root causes as part of an HSA - HSPA
continuum, i.e. diagnosis (‘bypassing PHC, medical radiation exposure) linked to qualitative
(focus groups, interviews…) and quantitative (‘number of X-rays undertaken for back problems’)
measures and further linked to intermediate and final health systems goals.
In terms of the expected results of this meeting, one outstanding issue is more clarity on the modus
operandi of the sub-groups after this meeting. It was mentioned that the organization of sub-groups
around the functions could continue, with TWG members listening in and participating to all topics
as per interest and expertise areas. Another possibility is to organize further teleconferences
around specific topics which need further discussion, whether they are functions-based or cross-
cutting, and invite all TWG members to participate as necessary. In practice, both will be tried
out in the future to see which works best, so a ‘learning by doing’ approach will be taken.
The following table summarizes key points discussed during previous sessions. Please note that
this is not a final list of sub-functions under each health system function but rather a simple
reflection of the working group’s output over a time-limited brainstorming period. As mentioned
earlier, this work will be further taken up by the TWG Secretariat, re-worked, and presented back
to the TWG in subsequent online meetings.
12
Functions- and sub-functions overview as per working group discussions
Health financing
Resource generation
Service Delivery
Revenue generation
Health workforce
Level of care:
households/community;
first level; second level;
third level; etc.
Pooling of health risks
Physical resources
(pharmaceuticals,
equipment,
infrastructure)
Performance
dimension:
responsibility and
oversight; services
provided; functionality;
access and coverage;
quality; etc.
Purchasing services
Information system
Social resources
Intermediate results/health goals which were mentioned in the course of the working group
discussions without them being a particular target topic were:
• Accountability
• Coverage
• Integrated care?
The above intermediate results need to be examined more closely and more technically by the
TWG Secretariat and brought as a key topic of a separate online TWG meeting.
Next steps
Some of the more obvious next steps are listed below. Please note that this is not an exhaustive
list.
• Background paper on function/sub-function criteria
• Alignment/coordination with UHC Monitoring, Global Action Plan on SDGs, various
function-specific deep dive tools
• Building blocks to functions: more clarity in the taxonomy matrix specifically on this link
• Social resource as a new sub-function: additional research
• Continue work on sub-functions in sub-groups
• Prepare discussions on quantitative indicators and qualitative information sources
• Prepare discussions on intermediate and final goal.
13
UHC2030 Technical Working Group on Health Systems Assessments
Second Face-to-Face Meeting:
HEALTH SYSTEMS (PERFORMANCE) ASSESSMENTS: TAXONOMY
Geneva, 6-7 November 2018
Novotel Genève Centre
List of Participants
COUNTRIES
1. AYAR, Banu
Family Physician Specialist,
Inpatient Health Services Planning
Department
General Directorate of Health Services
MoH/Turkey
banu.ayar@saglik.gov.tr
2. DEVADASAN, Narayanan
Director
Institute of Public Health (India)
deva@iphindia.org
(Apologies accepted)
3. DUAH, James
Christian Health Association of Ghana
james.duah@chag.org.gh
4. IPUGE, Yahya
Public Health Consultant
Tanzania
yipuge@gmail.com
5. MEEUS, Pascal
Conseiller general, Service des Soins de
Santé
Research, Development, Quality
Institute National Assurance Maladie
Invalidité (Belgium)
Pascal.meeus@inami.fgov.be
6. MIBINDZOU MOUELET, Ange
Pharmacist, Health Accounts Expert
MoH/Gabon
ammzou@csgabon.info
7. MIHALICZA, Péter
Independent Adviser
Hungary
peter.mihalicza@gmail.com
8. ODAME, Emmanuel Ankrah
Director for Policy, Planning,
Evaluation and Monitoring
MOH Ghana
joeankra@yahoo.com
(Apologies accepted)
9. PATCHARANARUMOL, Walaiporn
Director, International Health Policy
Program (IHPP)
MoH/Thailand
walaiporn@ihpp.thaigov.net
(Apologies accepted)
10. SUMRIDDETCHKAJORN, Kanitsorn
Director, Bureau of International
Affairs on Universal Health Coverage
National Health Security Office
comments.for.kanitsorn@gmail.com
11. UNEKE, Chigozie
Founder
African Institute for Health Policy &
Health Systems Studies (Nigeria)
unekecj@yahoo.com
12. VIRIYATHORN, Shaheda
Research Assistant, IHPP
MoH/Thailand
shaheda@ihpp.thaigov.net
14
13. YANSANÉ, Mohamed Lamine
Conseiller Politique Sanitaire
MoH/Guinea
yansanelamine@yahoo.fr
(Apologies accepted)
CIVIL SOCIETY
14. WENDT, David
Technical Advisor, Health Systems
Strengthening
Family Health International
dwendt@fhi360.org
15. KOUAKOU, Lucien
Regional Director – Africa
International Planned Parenthood
Federation
lkouakou@ippfaro.org
DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES & PARTNERS
16. BAGUMA, Emmanuella M.
Programme Officer, Monitoring &
Evaluation, Policy & Performance
Gavi Alliance
ebaguma@gavialliance.org
17. BALAJI, Lakshmi Narasimhan
Senior Advisor, Health
UNICEF
inbalaji@unicef.org
(Apologies accepted)
18. CHARLES, Jodi
Senior Health Systems Advisor, Health
Systems Division
Office of Health, Infectious Diseases
and Nutrition
Bureau for Global Health
USAID
jcharles@usaid.gov
(Apologies accepted)
19. FIGUERAS, Josep
Director
European Observatory on Health
Systems
figuerasj@obs.who.int
20. JAMES, Chris
Health Policy Analyst
OECD
chris.james@oecd.org
21. KARANIKOLOS, Marina
European Observatory
Marina.karanikolos@lshtm.ac.uk
22. LEYDON, Nicholas
Senior Program Officer, Integrated
Delivery
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Nicholas.Leydon@gatesfoundation.org
(Apologies accepted)
23. NOLTE, Ellen
Professor of Health Services Research
London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine
E.Nolte@lse.ac.uk
24. PAQUET, Christophe
Responsible de la Division Santé &
Protection sociale
Agence Française de Développement
(AFD)
paquetc@afd.fr
(Apologies accepted)
25. SCHEMIONEK, Katja
Senior Specialist, Health Systems and
Immunization Strengthening
Gavi Alliance
kschemionek@gavialliance.org
(Apologies accepted)
26. SHAKARISHVILI, George
Senior Advisor, Health Systems
Strengthening
The Global Fund
George.Shakarishvili@theglobalfund.or
g
(Apologies accepted)
15
27. SOLOMON, Abheet
Senior Programme Manager
UNICEF
asolomon@unicef.org
28. TOMLINSON, Nick
Global Health Adviser, Health Division
OECD
Nick.TOMLINSON@oecd.org
(Apologies accepted)
29. VEILLARD, Jeremy
Program Manager, Primary Health Care
Performance Initiative
World Bank
jveillard@worldbank.org
(Apologies accepted.)
30. VON ROENNE, Franz
Senior Advisor Strategy, Sector Initiative
Universal Health Coverage - UHC
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
franz.roenne@giz.de
31. WERLING, Esther
Advisor – UHC
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
esther.werling@giz.de
WHO REGIONAL/COUNTRY OFFICES
32. ABDEL MONEIM, Adham Rashad Ismail
Regional Adviser, Health and
Biomedical Devices (EM/HMD)
WHO EMRO
ismaila@who.int
(Apologies accepted)
33. BASCOLO, Ernesto
Advisor, Health Governance,
Leadership, Policy and Planning
WHO PAHO
bascoloe@paho.org
34. JAKUBOWSKI, Elke
Senior Advisor, Health Systems and
Public Health (EU/DSP)
WHO EURO
jakubowskie@who.int
35. KALAMBAY, Hyppolite
Medical Officer, Health Policies,
Strategies and Governance (AF/HSG)
WHO AFRO
kalambayntembwah@who.int
36. LAI, Taavi
Senior Adviser
WHO Country Office, Ukraine
lait@who.int
37. NABYONGA, Juliet
Medical Officer, Health
Policies,Strategies and Governance
(AF/HSG)
WHO AFRO
nabyongaj@who.int
38. OMAR, Sam
Medical Officer, Health Policies,
Strategies and Governance (AF/HSG)
WHO AFRO
samo@who.int
39. PASTORINO, Gabriele
Programme Management Officer,
EU/OBS – European Observatory on
Health Systems and Policies
WHO EURO
pastorinog@who.int
40. TUMUSIIME, Prosper
Director a.i., Health Systems and
Services Unit (AF/HSU)
WHO AFRO
tumusiimep@who.int
WHO HQ
41. CLARKE, Dave
Team Leader
UHC and Health Systems Law
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
clarked@who.int
42. GRIEKSPOOR, André
Senior Policy Adviser
Fragile, Crises & Vulnerable Settings
Health Emergencies Programme (WHE)
griekspoora@who.int
(Apologies accepted)
43. KOCH, Kira Johanna
Consultant
16
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
kochk@who.int
44. MAZVITA, Zanamwe
Consultant
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
mazvitazanamwe@gmail.com
45. MÜRER, Clementine
Consultant
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
clementine.murer@gmail.com
46. O’CONNELL, Thomas
Adviser
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
oconnellt@who.int
47. O’NEILL, Kathy
Coordinator, Global Platform for
Measurement and Accountability
(GPM)
oneillk@who.int
(Apologies accepted)
48. PAVIZA, Aurelie
Consultant
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
pavizaa@who.int
49. PORIGNON, Denis
Health Policy Expert
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
porignond@who.int
50. RAJAN, Dheepa
Technical Officer
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
rajand@who.int
51. ROBB, Alastair
Senior Technical Officer
Information, Evidence and Research
(IER)
robba@who.int
(Apologies accepted)
52. ROHRER-HEROLD, Katja
Consultant
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
k.rohrer@gmx.net
53. SCHMETS, Gerard
Coordinator
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
schmetsg@who.int
54. SHAH, Archana
Health Systems Adviser
Health Systems Governance, Policy &
Aid Effectiveness (HGS)
shaha@who.int
(Apologies accepted)
55. SOUCAT, Agnès
Director, Health Systems Governance
and Financing (HGF)
soucata@who.int
UHC2030 CORE TEAM
56. NICOD, Marjolaine
Joint Lead, UHC2030 Core Team
Health Systems Governance and
Financing (HGF)
WHO HQ
nicodm@who.int
(Apologies accepted)
57. PALU, Toomas
Joint Lead, UHC2030 Core Team
Health, Nutrition and Population –
Global Practice
World Bank
tpalu@worldbank.org
58. PASCUAL, Victoria
Team Assistant, UHC2030 Core Team
Health Systems Governance and
Financing (HGF)
WHO HQ
pascualv@who.int
59. SALLAKU, Julia
Technical Officer, UHC2030 Core Team
Health Systems Governance and
Financing
sallakuj@who.int