Ideas to Action:

Independent research for global prosperity

Tag: Global Fund

 

The Global Fund Opens Up

 

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria recently made it easier to find out where their money is going with the launch of a new, online grant portfolio portal.   This welcome and timely tool comes amid the Global Fund’s ambitious replenishment process that asks donors for $15 billion over the next three years to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria – a considerable amount that totals twice the Fund’s average annual disbursements over the past decade.  So we’re pleased to see the Global Fund take such a significant step to show stakeholders how these investments are being spent and what they are achieving.   And as avid users of Global Fund data ourselves, we’re particularly pleased to see a few features of this new tool:

 

Meet the Global Health Family: A Cheat Sheet

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.

It’s Halftime at the Global Fund

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria recently announced an ambitious goal of raising $15 billion in its fourth replenishment later this year, of which they hope the United States will contribute one-third ($5 billion, or $1.65 billion a year for three years).  So I was interested to see these two sentences tucked into the White House’s 2014 budget request: 

Trade-offs in FY14: A Case for the Global Fund

Amid an increasingly complex fiscal environment in Washington (i.e. the newly-triggered sequester and the soon-to-expire FY13 continuing resolution), I can’t help but think about the tough trade-offs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must be considering as they finalize the President’s FY14 budget request to Congress, expected to be released in mid-March. From an economics perspective, I appreciate careful consideration of these trade-offs. But from a health economics perspective, I have concerns about what cuts will mean for critical US investments in the global fight against AIDS, TB and Malaria. For reasons that have mostly to do with timing, coming in low on the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria request for FY14 could spell disaster.

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.”

Introducing the Global Fund Forum

When the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was created in 2002, it was intended to combat the global burden of these diseases while simultaneously delivering aid in new, innovative ways. In 2012, an increasingly austere budget climate has added pressure for the Global Fund to explore new approaches to global health financing and generate better “value for money"—a top concern to global health donors, who want the biggest bang for their buck in terms of lives saved and epidemiological progress.

A Global Health Mystery: What’s Behind the US Government Position on AMFm?

As the Global Fund’s November board meeting approaches – where the future of the Affordable Medicines Facility for Malaria (AMFm) hangs in the balance – there is much anxiety that AMFm will be terminated in 2013. The reason for such anxiety is clear: no donors have pledged funding commitments for after December 2012. But there’s another elephant in the room: the US government’s apparent lack of support, particularly its legislated “opt-in” stance on AMFm: “the Global Fund should not support activities involving the ‘Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria’ or similar entities pending compelling evidence of success from pilot programs as evaluated by the Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat Malaria Globally.” (Conversely, an opt-out stance would be to support AMFm unless no compelling evidence is presented.) This very specific and strict provision makes the AMFm’s continued survival all but impossible without an explicit endorsement by US Global Malaria Coordinator (currently Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer) who leads the US President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) housed in the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Ethiopia’s AIDS Spending Cliff

There’s an AIDS spending cliff in Ethiopia and the government is already in free fall. Next year, Ethiopia will experience a 79% reduction in US HIV financing from PEPFAR. The announcement of these cuts came with an explanation that PEPFAR was “free(ing) up resources by reducing programs in lower HIV prevalence countries” (see blog). Further, Global Fund monies have gone almost completely undisbursed in 2012. These cuts in spending might be warranted due to epidemiological trends and improved efficiency, or might cripple progress as health programs dependent on external donors are cut back. The truth is, with the current poor status of basic information on beneficiaries and costs, it’s difficult to judge whether these cuts are good or bad.

Pages