This is a joint post with Rachel Silverman.
Through our Value for Money working group, we’ve spent much of the past year immersed in the world of global health funding agencies. With so many new agencies, particularly in the last quarter century (Figure 1), understanding the intricacies of the global health family can be daunting, even for the most devoted observers.
The World Bank’s Africa Health Forum: Finance & Capacity for Results during its 2013 Spring Meetings brought together ministers of finance and of health from 30 African countries in a unique opportunity for mutual listening between countries and partners. One recurring theme in forum and in the first panel was that results-based financing (RBF) – where financing is conditioned on achievement of results in health – is a key approach to driving value for money. In short: RBF = more money for more health. (You can watch the recorded ministerial discussion here.)
During one of my many virtual and real-time conversations this week on the contest for the World Bank presidency, John Paul Fawcett from RESULTS reminded me that we in global health world had just had a similar conversation about the transportability of leadership skills across disciplines and institutions when Gabriel Jaramillo -formerly of Banco Santander- took on the job of General Manager at the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria.
… where’s the action?
The World Bank has said all the right things about putting its substantial influence behind sensible programs that generate revenue, cut health costs and save lives. So far, however, it has done little on a simple measure that would cost-effectively achieve all three of these goals: raising tobacco taxes.
Why is the World Health Organization (WHO) facing a financial crisis at a time when international support for global health issues has never been higher? The answer to this question cannot be found in any of the documents circulated for the 2011 World Health Assembly this week, but most observers cite three contributing factors: donors question the WHO’s performance, new organizations dedicated to specific issues have assumed responsibility for large parts of the global health agenda, and the WHO lacks a vision for its role and specific priorities within this new multi-faceted global health community.
Last night, I received the tragic news that Philip Musgrove, my friend and colleague, died in an accident at Iguazu Falls. It is hard for me to write this because it is hard for me to believe Phil is gone. The hole he leaves behind is so very large. Phil appreciated friends, humor, and analytical twists. His criticism could be sharp but the encouragement he offered people was also boundless.
Bill Gates’ effort to close the $2.6 billion funding gap for polio eradication has been accompanied by high-profile coverage at Davos, in The New York Times and even The Daily Show.
Continuing the N-gram craze (see Charles Kenny’s post here), I’ve compared the Google Books presence of the World Bank to the World Health Organization. The good news: WHO’s star is on the rise!
After almost five years (yes, it’s been that long!) of tracking and analyzing key features of the design, delivery and management of top global AIDS donors, several key policy debates have emerged from the HIV/AIDS Monitor’s country-level studies. Perhaps the most prominent was our call for greater information and data transparency, because we found that the lack of data made effectiveness analysis difficult, if not impossible.