With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
evidence-informed policy, health technology assessment, priority-setting, universal health coverage
Kalipso Chalkidou is the Director of Global Health Policy and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development. Previously, she was the Director of Global Health and Development Group at the Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, helping governments build technical and institutional capacity for improving the value for money of their healthcare investment. She is interested in how local information, local expertise, and local institutions can drive scientific and legitimate healthcare resource allocation decisions whilst improving patient outcomes.
She has been involved in the Chinese rural health reform and also in national health reform projects in the USA, India, Colombia, Turkey and the Middle East, working with the World Bank, PAHO, DFID and the Inter-American Development Bank as well as national governments. Between 2008 and 2016 she founded and ran NICE International, a non-profit group within the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
Culyer, Anthony J., and Kalipso Chalkidou. "Economic Evaluation for Health Investments En Route to Universal Health Coverage: Cost-Benefit Analysis or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis?" Value in Health, July 2018. (Open Access)
As developing nations are increasingly adopting economic evaluation as a means of informing their own investment decisions, new questions emerge. The right answer to the question “which perspective?” is the one tailored to these local specifics. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all and that the one who pays must set or have a major say in setting the perspective.
Aid allocation has been a topic of much investigation across several fields. In particular, many studies have looked at the patterns of development assistance for health (DAH). For example, a study by Hanlon and colleagues found that regional variations in DAH country allocations were only in part explained by differences in disease burden or income levels. If DAH allocation is not primarily driven by the health and financial needs of those receiving it, then on what grounds is it allocated?
Today, politicians are under growing pressure to squeeze more out of every dollar and guarantee greater access to better, more affordable healthcare for their citizens. In such a resource-constrained environment, wasting trillions of dollars on health every year is not viable. This note provides an overview of some of the approaches and policy options that the National Health Service in England has been using to maximise value for money.
Global Burden of Disease (GBD) country rankings can strengthen the case of advocates at global and national levels for prioritising investment towards the major drivers of mortality and morbidity. But as discussed in our earlier blog post, when it comes to informing specific investment cases within these broader priorities, GBD data alone are not enough to allow consideration of trade-offs and of opportunity costs of alternative investment choices addressing the same problem. The next step in using data to trigger action ought to be the generation, in conjunction with domestic stakeholders, of what we call below “super-local data.”
December 12 marks the fifth annual Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Day. Half a decade after the landmark UN endorsement, more countries than ever are working to translate UHC goals into reality through defined, tangible, equitable, and comprehensive health services for their populations. To celebrate, CGD is pleased to host a short program—Better Decisions, Better Health: Practical Experiences Supporting UHC from Around the World.
Global health policy enthusiasts will be excited to see that WHO has recently published a draft Concept Note on the 2019-2023 Programme of Work under the stewardship of its new Director-General. We see two glaring missed opportunities: 1) more centrality to universal health coverage (UHC) as an organizing principle for WHO and its work, and 2) more emphasis on enhancing the value for money of public spending on UHC and elsewhere.
In April this year, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) published a report making the case for “Integrating Clinical Research into Epidemic Response.” As reflected in its title, the 250-page-plus-appendices report makes a strong evidence-informed argument for integrating health service delivery with clinical research conducted during epidemics. The goal is to produce critical information on the efficacy and safety of potential therapeutics and vaccines for tackling such epidemics after they occur, or, better still, for preventing them from happening. Earlier this week, the group reconvened at the Wellcome Trust to discuss “what next.” The need to focus on systematic support and funding for the data collection and research functions in outbreak-affected countries came out again as the top priority.