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.
This week the World Health Organization made dementia a priority, while Jim Kim—next in line for the World Bank—chose his as job creation. “Priority” is a word that is often used in global health and development when calling for increased attention to or funding of specific diseases, services, or interventions. But when facing a limited budget (as most low- and middle-income countries are) how can countries best sort multiple priorities into effective, sustainable policies?
WHO’s Executive Board met last month to review progress on reforms at the agency. Among the documents distributed to the Board, there is a report on plans for priority-setting amongst the WHO’s 213 projects run by 8 organizational divisions and 15 regional and special offices.
Everyone agrees that WHO should set priorities in an era of declining resources and eroding purchasing power, but how?
The Director-General’s report is an early effort to figure this out.
The main outcome of the high-level meeting on non-communicable diseases (NCD) is homework for the WHO. WHO is assigned to lead the global response to NCD, develop a monitoring and evaluation framework, provide technical assistance and track progress towards global targets.
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.
On March 23rd, Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet, “tweeted” a series of 140 character messages in rapid fire about the World Health Organization (WHO) that caught my eye:
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.
This week, Dr. Seth Berkley was named Chief Executive Officer of the GAVI Alliance. Expectations are high as GAVI seeks to raise US$ 3.7 billion this year for childhood vaccination in poor countries. Here are some ideas and questions for Dr. Berkley’s first day at work – welcome!
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!
