6-6e3b72cd28755b20.js?dpl=dpl_ATto1ipsNss19Z3LuihcY26vCJtg","7524","static/chunks/7524-826ba34b2346b5e4.js?dpl=dpl_ATto1ipsNss19Z3LuihcY26vCJtg","9530","static/chunks/9530-df2ad5745e1f3a65.js?dpl=dpl_ATto1ipsNss19Z3LuihcY26vCJtg","2378","static/chunks/2378-976ac88edd461581.js?dpl=dpl_ATto1ipsNss19Z3LuihcY26vCJtg","9869","static/chunks/app/pdf/%5Bslug%5D/page-0e5f29af9d8cbcf7.js?dpl=dpl_ATto1ipsNss19Z3LuihcY26vCJtg"],"LanguageSpecificPDF"] 1b:T5c1,

Given anticipated human resources for health (HRH) constraints and the need for greater shared financial responsibility for HIV in an era of HIV scale-up, it is critical to understand government capacity and willingness to increase and maximize the efficiency of investments in HRH for HIV. To assess this, the PEPFAR-funded USAID HRH2030 program developed a methodology that was applied in Uganda from October 2016 to October 2017. It involved three components:

Baseline analysis;
Fiscal space and cost scenario analysis; and
Political economy analysis.

The analysis from Uganda has implications for other countries. Many countries likely face funding gaps for HRH that jeopardize achievement of national and global HIV targets. In these cases, an evidence-based HIV workforce investment case can lead to a better understanding of planning requirements and convince key stakeholders to make more strategic investments in HRH for HIV. The type of strategic investment required will vary by country, but may include increased government spending, reallocation of existing financial resources, increased provision of HIV services in the private sector or at the community level, integration of HIV financing into broader health financing reforms (e.g., health insurance), and/or smarter use of HRH through introduction or expansion of efficient service delivery models, such as differentiated models of care for ART.