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.
With shifting disease burdens, growing populations, and rising expectations comes a greater focus on value for money. International health funders and agencies want to know how to make the most of money spent by focusing on the highest impact interventions among the most affected populations. Whether through better procurement systems for health commodities, results-based financing, or more detailed assessments of the effectiveness of health technology, CGD’s work aims to make health funding go further to save, prolong and improve more lives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This report of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program summarizes the rationale for continued U.S. investment in global health, looks into the evolution of the Global Health Initiative, and recommends a re-boot for the whole enterprise.
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).
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria will host its fourth replenishment meeting this week in Washington, DC where it’s hoping to raise $15 billion to support its work for the next three years. On the eve of the replenishment, the BBC will air a 30-minute segment on its show Panorama titled “Where’s Our Aid Money Gone” that – judging by the synopsis – will likely take a more critical view of the Global Fund than much of its recent press (see here, here, and here).
The Global Fund’s New Funding Model (NFM) was approved by its Board more than a year ago, representing what the Fund’s Director Mark Dybul called “a new beginning” to “achieve greater impact in the lives of people affected by HIV and AIDS, TB and malaria.
At a panel session during the 4th Conference of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) held in Washington, DC, a group of distinguished speakers and leaders on health in China – from the China Medical Board, top universities and the Ministry of Health – were tasked with discussing and elaborating on China's role in global health. The speakers briefly discussed China's history in international health activities (their first deployment of medical teams to Africa dates back to 1963!), different kinds of partnerships in global health - particularly among universities, and examples of current and upcoming initiatives. In sum, the panel suggested a promising future for China’s role in global health.