Financing nutrition in India: Cost implications of the nutrition policy landscape 2019-20

Abstract

Several people contributed to writing this note. Their support was invaluable.In particular, we would like to thank Esha Sarswat from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for her helpful comments and committed guidance.We are also grateful to Suman Chakrabarti from the University of Washington for his insightful suggestions. We would like to thank Avantika Srivastava from the Accountability Initiative and Pratima Mathews from IFPRI for editing this note. Lastly, we are indebted to Akash Singh for designing it.

Improving nutrition budgeting in health sector plans: Evidence from India's anaemia control strategy

“…Out of 11 major budget heads or components of AMB, procurement remains the biggest component (79%) in the overall AMB budget, followed by incentives for community workers (9%). The contribution of critical components like capacity building, IEC/BCC, printing and strengthening of services were low, that is, 3%, 1%, T A B L E 1 Estimated required, planned and allocated budget for Anemia Mukt Bharat, 12 states, India, FY 2019-2020, FY 2020and FY 2021-2022 5-7).…”

“…in million Change in estimated required budget and percentage change in planned against required for AMB, 12 states,India, FY 2019-2020, FY 2020 and FY 2021-2022 One million INR is equal to USD 13,634 as on September 2020. Percentage change in allocated budget of AMB across 12 states,India, FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, INR in million Component wise allocated budget for Anemia Mukt Bharat, 12 states, India, FY 2020 and FY 2021-2022 …”

“…For example, Jharkhand, Odisha, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh proposed funds for IFA red tablets for women in the reproductive age group. Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Telangana and West Bengal proposed funds for haemoglobino T A B L E 4 Source: Authors based on NHM PIP and RoP documents.T A B L E 5 Change in planned budget and percentage change in allocated against the planned budget of AMB across 12 states, India, FY2019-2020, FY 2020 and FY 2021-2022…”

“…It is important to understand that improved planning and approvals, though critical, may not immediately lead to improvements in programme coverage. Currently, the comparison of coverage of AMB's key performance indicators (such as IFA provision) and the planning and approval budget gaps in FY2019-2020 and FY 2020 shows no direct relation.Moreover, the financial cycle includes two more important stages, that is, disbursements and expenditures which are part of the Track and Act method. What money actually gets spent by whom, on what items, and for what purpose is often determined during the process of budget execution, which in itself implies political, financial and technical interactions within a basket of interests and powers(Rajan et al, 2016).The designing and implementation of the Track and Act method and the consequent findings point to several recommendations that can further strengthen the programme.…”

Public finance management and data availability for nutrition financing in India

“…For instance, costing studies have been used as a starting point to estimate requirements, and assess resources necessary for scale-up. [10][11][12] When combined with estimated benefits of a programme, they provide insights on cost-effectiveness. 13 Similarly, various countries have used nutrition budget analyses in myriad ways including identifying and coordinating nutrition across sectors (Tanzania, Congo, Philippines, etc) and advocating increased funding for nutrition (Senegal, Madagascar, Nepal, etc).…”