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.
Rachel Silverman is a policy fellow at the Center for Global Development, where she leads policy-oriented research on global health financing and incentive structures. Silverman’s current research focuses on the practical application of results-based financing; global health transitions; efficient global health procurement; innovation models for global health; priority-setting for UHC; alignment and impact in international funding for family planning; and strategies to strengthen evidence and accountability. Before joining CGD in 2011 she worked with the National Democratic Institute to support democracy and governance strengthening programs in Kosovo. She holds a master’s of philosophy with distinction in public health from the University of Cambridge, which she attended as a Gates Cambridge Scholar. She also holds a BA with distinction in international relations and economics from Stanford University.
Health products—including drugs, devices, diagnostics, and vector control tools—are essential for meeting the healthcare needs of any population. Right now, many low- and lower-middle-income countries rely on donor-managed mechanisms to procure a large share of these health commodities. But this status quo won’t stay static for long, and the global health community must prepare for sweeping changes in global health and procurement over the next 10–20 years. Here’s some of what we see happening now and on the immediate horizon.
At a London conference earlier this month, some donors promised generous funding for family planning services in developing countries. At the same time, however, future support from the US is in doubt, and progress towards the FP2020 family planning goals has been extremely limited. Just how much progress have we made, and how far do we have to go? What difference will the new pledges make, and how should they be used? Rachel Silverman, CGD’s assistant director of global health policy, responds to these questions in this week’s podcast.
With significant new money raised for the cause of family planning—an important accomplishment given the uncertainty around sustained US funding and the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy—it’s now time for donors to get serious about optimizing the efficiency, impact, and sustainability of family planning programs.
Each of the G20 summits of the past seven years has suffered in comparison with the London and Pittsburgh Summits of 2009, when the imperative of crisis response motivated leaders, finance ministers, and central bankers to coordinate effectively with each other. Subsequent summits have lacked the same sense of urgency and have failed to deliver any kind of agenda that can be pinpointed as clearly as “saving the global economy.” This week’s summit in Hamburg, Germany promises more of the same, with the real possibility that the G20’s stock could fall even further at the hands of a non-cooperative US delegation.
We would argue that investing in global health, at least along certain dimensions, is entirely consistent with President Trump’s philosophy of America First—a real opportunity for his administration to improve the security of the American people by pushing through some much-needed reform. In that spirit, we’ve put together a proposal for a new executive initiative under the Trump Administration. We call it PAHAA: Protecting America’s Health at Home and Abroad.
Another year, another attempt at harmonizing global health data collection. This time around, the effort comes from a multiagency working group comprised of representatives from donor agencies and international organizations, in collaboration with IHP+.
In recent weeks, the public health world and political pundits alike have been abuzz about results from the “Oregon Experiment,” a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that finds no statistical link between expanded Medicaid coverage and health outcomes such as high cholesterol or hypertension. Limitations of the study aside, the Oregon Experiment is a good example of the importance of rigorously testing all US health programs, rather than just assuming ‘more care = better health’. The Innovation Center at the United States Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, created under the umbrella of the Affordable Care Act, represents a new and encouraging approach to address this problem, an approach that we think has important lessons for global health.