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)
Whether it’s called strategic purchasing, evidence-informed commissioning, or value-based insurance, the quest to squeeze better value out of existing resources is global. But lack of clarity regarding global and national healthcare investment goals, coupled with low technical capacity in ministries of health and insurance funds and multiple competing interests for attracting healthcare dollars, all make proactive evidence-informed buying hard to achieve. The global health community ought to help Ghana and countries like it strengthen their national systems for allocating resources including when selecting, negotiating prices, and procuring medicines for their populations.
With aid budgets shrinking and even low-income countries increasingly faced with cofinancing requirements, this is the right time for global health funders such as the Global Fund and their donors to formally introduce Health Technology Assessment (HTA), both at the central operations level and at the national or regional level in recipient countries. In this CGD Note, we explain why introducing HTA is a good idea. Specifically, we outline six benefits that the application of HTA could bring to the Global Fund, the countries it supports, and the broader global health community.
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.
Vaccinate children against measles and mumps or pay for the costs of dialysis treatment for kidney disease patients? Pay for cardiac patients to undergo lifesaving surgery, or channel money toward efforts to prevent cardiovascular disease in the first place? For universal health care (UHC) to become a reality, policymakers looking to make their money go as far as possible must make tough life-or-death choices like these.
Many low- and middle-income countries aspire to universal health coverage (UHC), but for rhetoric to become reality, the health services offered must be consistent with the funds available, which may require tough tradeoffs. An explicit health benefits package—a defined list of services that are and are not subsidized—is essential in creating a sustainable UHC system.
A new contribution from the Center for Global Development and the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI)—What’s In, What’s Out: Designing Benefits for Universal Health Coverage, edited by Amanda Glassman, Ursula Giedion and Peter Smith—argues that an explicit health benefits package (HBP), to be funded with public monies, is an essential element of a sustainable and effective health system, and considers the institutional, fiscal, methodological, legal, and ethical dimensions of their design and implementation. This event—a private policy breakfast and release of the book—aims to gather leading voices for universal health coverage, effective health financing, and evidence-based health policy to discuss and debate the book’s key findings and messages. Hard copies of the book will be available for all attendees.
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.”
Earlier this month, the first analysis of countries’ progress towards attaining the health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was published in the Lancet. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) used Global Burden of Disease Data (GBD 2016) to create an index for 37 (out of 50) health-related SDG indicators between 1990–2016, for a total of 188 countries. Based on the pace of change recorded over the past 25 years or so, the researchers then projected the indicators to 2030. The punchline: if past is prologue, the median number of SDG targets attained in 2030 will be five of the 24 defined targets currently measured. Not very inspiring.
Researchers highlight big issues with drug purchasing and generic drug markets
Eva Taylor Grant
Center for Global Development
WASHINGTON – Basic, everyday drugs can cost up to 20 to 30 times more in some poor countries than others, according to a new study released today by the Center for Global Development. The study examined billions of dollars of health spending on common, life-saving medicines in developing countries, mostly in Africa and Asia. To date, it is one of the largest-ever studies on global health procurement.
“Developing countries are often paying far more for everyday drugs than they should be. Why do some poor countries pay 20 to 30 times as much as others for common medicines to relieve pain or treat hypertension? In large part, because of flawed drug buying practices and broken generic medicines markets,” said Amanda Glassman, one of the authors of the study and the executive vice president at the Center for Global Development.
“A robust market for generic drugs is a core part of an affordable health system. But in way too many countries, generic drug markets are broken and patients are paying the price,” said Kalipso Chalkidou, the director of global health policy at the Center for Global Development and an author of the study. “You need enough competition to keep prices low and quality assurance that consumers trust, or essential medicines are going to be much more expensive than they should be.”
The study had three main findings:
In developing countries, prices for basic generic medicines can vary widely and far exceed wealthy-country prices. Some purchasers in low- and middle-income countries pay as much as 20 to 30 times more for basic generic medicines like omeprazole, used to treat heartburn, or acetaminophen (also known as paracetamol), a common pain reliever.
Low- and middle-income countries purchase more expensive branded generic drugs rather than unbranded quality-assured generics. In the US, most drugs are either on-patent medicines or unbranded generics, but in many developing countries more expensive brand-name generics are widely used, because people are concerned about unsafe or counterfeit drugs. In the poorest countries, unbranded generics are only 5 percent of the pharmaceutical market by volume—in comparison to the US where unbranded quality-assured generics are 85 percent of the market by volume.
There is little competition in the supply of essential medicines in low- and middle-income countries. The largest seller of products like contraceptives, cancer medicines, and antiparasitics can account for upwards of 85 percent of all sales in some countries.
“We’re talking about access to common medications for pain or high blood pressure, not the latest cutting-edge cancer drugs,” Glassman said.
“It’s not as exciting to talk about procurement as new health technologies or biotech breakthroughs,” she continued. “But drug purchasing is incredibly important, and if it’s done badly you end up with the poorest countries in the world paying some of the highest drug prices.”
You can read the full study at www.cgdev.org/better-health-procurement.