Monthly
Operations review
Delivery and bottlenecks, examined against quarterly milestones.
How the programme holds itself to account
A fixed cycle of review, from monthly operations to the annual performance report.
- 12
- Monthly operations reviews a year
- 4
- Quarterly data quality audits
- 2
- Technical Advisory Committee meetings
- 63
- Indicators under review
- 6
- Pilot states surveyed
Four tiers of review, each with its own cadence
Every tier examines a defined set of questions and records what changes as a result.
Quarterly
Technical review
Technical workstreams, data quality audit and supportive supervision.
Biannual
Advisory and outcomes
Technical Advisory Committee, partner compliance and outcome surveys.
Annual
Performance and audit
Performance review, work planning, governance self-assessment and external audit.
Monthly operations review
Volumes, enrolment and stock, read against the milestones set for the quarter.
Who attends
The ADMFm Secretariat, participating manufacturers and distributors.
What is examined
Progress against the milestones set for the quarter.
- Commodity volumes distributed
- Outlets enrolled and active, and stock status
- Bottlenecks against quarterly milestones
How issues surface
An early-warning dashboard using operational risk heat map logic.
- Corrective actions agreed in the meeting
- Persistent underperformance escalated to the oversight body
The quarterly cycle
A sequence of distinct activities, each producing evidence the next one uses.
Supportive supervision at the outlet
Technical review
Quarterly multi-stakeholder technical workstreams review implementation progress and resolve operational issues.
Data quality audit
Conducted using the ADMFm DQA Tool, reconciling platform data against physical verification and supervision findings.
Supportive supervision
Visits to enrolled outlets covering dispensing practice, RDT use, patient counselling and record-keeping.
Financial reporting
Quarterly financial reports from manufacturers and distributors, subject to audit review before submission.
Biannual review
Technical oversight, partner compliance and evidence from the pilot states.
Technical Advisory Committee
Meets biannually, provides technical oversight, and reports to the Honourable Minister of Health and Social Welfare.
Partner compliance review
Semi-annual review of every manufacturer and distributor against their participation agreement.
Outcome surveys
Conducted across the six pilot states, with findings used to recalibrate intervention strategies. Semi-annual progress reports published.
Annual review
Performance against target, next year's plan, and an independent audit.
Programme performance review
Annual review of output, outcome and impact indicators against target.
Work planning cycle
Programme relevance reviewed and the following year's plan set.
Governance self-assessment
Assessed against the participation and accreditation guidelines.
External financial audit
Independent annual audit, with consolidated financial summaries published to the oversight body.
What gets reviewed
Sixty-three harmonised indicators, grouped by what each one measures.
- 13
- Input and process
- 20
- Output
- 14
- Outcome
- 7
- Impact
- 9
- Traceability and impact
Those indicators draw on the Sproxil verification platform, DHIS2, NHLMIS, supportive supervision, client exit surveys and mystery client visits.
Data quality
Checks at the point of collection, then reconciliation against physical evidence.
Validation at the point of collection
Each submission is checked as it is captured.
- GPS verification and timestamp validation
- Photo quality and completeness checks
- Duplicate detection and logical consistency checks
Reconciliation
Platform data checked against physical verification and supervision findings each quarter.
- 95%
- Reporting completeness
- 90%
- Reporting timeliness
When performance falls short
Three steps, applied in order, each with its own timeline and consequence.
Step one
Formal warning
Issued in writing within five working days, specifying the breach, a corrective action plan with a timeline not exceeding 30 days, and the consequence of continued non-compliance. The partner acknowledges and responds within five working days.
Step two
Suspension
Applied if the corrective plan is not implemented on time, or the same failure recurs within 90 days. No further commodity allocations or co-payment disbursements during suspension. Up to 60 days allowed to demonstrate remediation.
Step three
De-listing
A Technical Working Group decision, irreversible within the programme period, notified to NMEP, PVAC, NAFDAC and PCN. The outlet or entity is removed from all ADMFm public registers and stock retrieval begins.
The response is graduated, matched to the severity of the failure and to how long it persists.
A subsidy becomes a programme at the point where it is reviewed on a fixed cycle.
The cadence set out here exists so that findings change what happens next, in the following month's allocations and in the following year's plan.