Ideas to Action:

Independent research for global prosperity

Global Health Policy

CGD experts discuss such issues as health financing, drug resistance, clinical trials, vaccine development, HIV/AIDS, and health-related foreign assistance.

X

Global Health Policy

Feed

 

The Future of AMFm: Realpolitik and Realistic Options (Part II)

This week the Global Fund Board will determine whether to “expand, accelerate, terminate or suspend the Affordable Medicines Facility – malaria (AMFm).” Ideally, the Board would make an evidence-based decision. However, both the sufficiency and the relevance of available technical evidence have been questioned (see here and here). The role of political and process evidence is also not very transparent. Below, we lay out our understanding of the potential options and the factors the Board should consider.

The Future of AMFm: Making Sense from All the Noise

This is a joint post with Heather Lanthorn.

The Global Fund Board’s decision over the Affordable Medicines Facility – malaria (AMFm) rapidly approaches, and tensions within the malaria community are acute. In her global health blog for The Guardian, Sarah Boseley characterizes the rift as one of

huge arguments and intense passions…[because] it is about the belief on one side that the private sector is the most effective way to get medicines to those who need them – and the certainty on the other side that bolstering the public sector to diagnose and treat people is a fairer and safer way to go. These are not just practical matters, but highly political.”

Maternal Mortality: We Already Know What Works…Or Do We?

In a recent pitch for the $63 billion Global Health Initiative (see my post on the event), U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded to a question about measuring progress in women’s health. “We are focusing on maternal mortality because that is so measurable. We know where we have a better idea of what works and what it will take to have more women deliver babies successfully. There’s all kinds of interventions from the very simplest, like a safe birthing kit, which is a piece of twine and a clean razor blade and a bar of soap and a piece of plastic to put under the women, all the way up to tertiary care for complicated pregnancies…”

Give the Global Fund a Gold Star for Their Hard-Hitting Evaluation...Now Comes the Hard Part

In 2002, the Global Fund (GF) was established to be a “new and improved” model for health aid. Founding head, Richard Feachem coined the pithy phrase “Raise it. Spend it. Prove it.” to capture their raison d’etre. A hard-hitting evaluation of their first five years has just been published. It gives them: an A – for “raising it”; a B – for “spending it”; and, a D minus, for “proving it”.

The IMF and the Swine Flu? WHO's on First!

This is a joint post with David Goldsbrough.

As the possibility of a one trillion dollar supplement in IMF funding comes closer to fruition in the midst of alerts about the possibility of a new pandemic of influenza, some of us at CGD have been asked about the possibility of connections between IMF adjustment programs and health. Some of the questions are a bit loopy, like: Did the IMF cause the current flu epidemic? And even weirder: should the IMF prevent future flu epidemics?

In the Halls of CGD, on the WHO…

A joint posting by members of the CGD health team (April Harding, Mead Over, Rachel Nugent, Andrea Feigl, and Danielle Kuczynski)

Scene 1.

Thursday was a typical morning at CGD: birds chirping, sun shining, the health team arrives at their computers and sits down with a hot cup of coffee to tackle the challenges of the day- only to find that April Harding has circulated an article by Anne Applebaum (AA), on why the World Health Organization (WHO) should focus on infectious diseases, which April called “A really nice piece on why we should care about (and fix) the WHO”.

Email frenzy ensues.

Health Systems Strengthening: Whither the World Bank?

With Ruth Levine.

The High Level Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems met week before last in London. To their great credit, they’ve posted draft reports from their two Working Groups so interested observers can see the where they’re going. Working Group 1 seeks to identify the health systems-related constraints to achieving global health goals, and presents estimates of costs of achieving priority goals (e.g. targeted reductions in maternal and child health). Working Group 2 (WG2) aims to identify new sources of funding and lay out the best options for channeling the funding to countries to improve health system performance. Further work and consultation is pending over the next three months, and then the Taskforce will provide their suggestions to the G8 for consideration at the July Summit in Italy.

Pages