Mental illnesses are among the top causes of disability and disease in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Yet despite the enormous burden that mental ill-health imposes, mental health care remains a truly neglected area of global health policy.
Many health improving interventions in low-income countries are extremely good value for money.
Remarkable progress has been made in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. The number of people receiving treatment in low- and middle-income countries increased from 300,000 in 2003 to 13.7 million in 2015, including 7 million supported by the United States. These gains are primarily attributable to a 2003 US government initiative called PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) that provided major new multiyear funding for global HIV/AIDS and created a new entity, the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, headed by an ambassador-rank Global AIDS Coordinator who is authorized to allocate PEPFAR’s resources and coordinate all US bilateral and multilateral activities on HIV/AIDS.
However, without dramatic changes to PEPFAR, the next president risks being held responsible for the failure of a program that until now has been one of the United States’ proudest foreign assistance achievements. And because PEPFAR is a major component of US foreign assistance spending, the next president’s choices about PEPFAR will heavily influence any subsequent assessments of his or her humanitarian foreign assistance policies.
In the absence of effective international institutions, the United States has become the world’s de facto first responder for global health crises such as HIV/AIDS and new threats like Ebola. The US government has the technical know-how, financial and logistical resources, and unparalleled political support to act quickly and save lives. Initiatives such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President’s Malaria Initiative are widely considered among the most effective aid programs in the world.
Yet US global health approaches are based on increasingly outdated engagement models, which fail to reflect emerging challenges, threats, and financial constraints. The next US president, working closely with Congress, should modernize how US global health programs are organized, deployed, and overseen. By taking three specific steps, the United States can reduce the need for costly first responses and generate more health and economic impact for every US taxpayer dollar spent.
Data Set for "How Much Will Health Coverage Cost? Future Health Spending Scenarios in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico - Working Paper 382"
This is the data set for Working Paper 382 which examines the expansion of universal healthcare in Latin America. The authors calculate long-term projections for public spending on health in three countries and analyze different scenarios related to population, risk factors, labor market participation, and technological growth.
Donors play a significant role in funding medicines and other commodities in global health. Of the approximately US $28.2 billion spent by donors in 2010, approximately 40% went towards medicines, vaccines and other health commodities, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. The efficiency of this spend is therefore of great concern, given the large variability in supply chain costs.
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, pools donor funds to increase immunization rates in developing countries. Vaccines have saved millions of lives. Results from new research at the Center for Global Development suggest Gavi could save more lives by shifting support away from lower-cost vaccines provided to middle-income countries toward more underused vaccines and support to the poorest countries.
Since 2001, an aid consortium known as Gavi has accounted for over half of vaccination expenditure in the 75 eligible countries with an initial per capita GNI below $1,000.
How Much Will Health Coverage Cost? Future Health Spending Scenarios in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico - Working Paper 382
As Latin American countries seek to expand the coverage and benefits provided by their health systems under a global drive for universal health coverage (UHC), decisions taken today – whether by government or individuals – will have an impact tomorrow on public spending requirements.
The Political Economy of Bad Data: Evidence from African Survey & Administrative Statistics - Working Paper 373
Across multiple African countries, discrepancies between administrative data and independent household surveys suggest official statistics systematically exaggerate development progress. We provide evidence for two distinct explanations of these discrepancies.
Despite improvements in censuses and household surveys, the building blocks of national statistical systems in sub-Saharan Africa remain weak. Measurement of fundamental statistics such as births and deaths, growth and poverty, taxes and trade, land and the environment, and sickness, schooling, and safety is shaky at best.
Despite improvements in censuses and household surveys, the building blocks of national statistical systems in sub-Saharan Africa remain weak. Measurement of fundamentals such as births and deaths, growth and poverty, taxes and trade, land and the environment, and sickness, schooling, and safety is shaky at best. The Data for African Development Working Group’s recommendations for reaping the benefits of a data revolution in Africa fall into three categories: (1) fund more and fund differently, (2) build institutions that can produce accurate, unbiased data, and (3) prioritize the core attributes of data building blocks.
The US has an untapped opportunity to offer global leadership against drug resistance through the major global health programs it already supports, namely PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and the Presidents Malaria Imitative. In this memo, Victoria Fan and Amanda Glassman highlight considerations for Congress with respect to oversight of these key channels of US development assistance for health that greatly affect drug resistance.
PEPFAR is at a critical turning point in its decade-long existence. The next US Global AIDS Coordinator is uniquely positioned to set the course for the program’s future. A change in leadership at the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief creates an opportunity to ask questions about the organization and reflect in more general terms on the US response to the global AIDS epidemic.
The Global Fund is currently finalizing design and implementation of its New Funding Model (NFM), which includes a focus on strengthened measurement and an impact-based investment strategy.
More than ever, global health funding agencies must get better value for money from their investment portfolios; to do so, each agency must know the interventions it supports and the sub-populations targeted by those interventions in each country. In this study we examine the interventions supported by two major international AIDS funders: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (‘Global Fund’) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
This is the data set for Policy Paper 33 in which Victoria Fan, Denizhan Duran, Rachel Silverman, and Amanda Glassman
This report offers a strategy for the Global Fund to get more health for the money by focusing more on results, maximizing cost-effectiveness, and systematically measuring performance throughout its operations.