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 effective ness of health technology, CGD’s work aims to make health funding go further to save, prolong and improve more lives.
A health policy decision is only as good as the information available to the decision maker. As countries strive to achieve Universal Health Coverage and funding from local governments and global donors is scrutinized, there is an acute need for more and better economic evaluation to inform government and donor investments in healthcare. To that end, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest funders of health economic evaluation in LMIC settings, has partnered with an international collaboration of experts to develop the Gates Reference Case – a principle-based standardised methodology for good practice in the planning, implementation, and reporting of economic evaluation for informing priority setting in health. This session will introduce the principles of the Gates Reference Case, explain how and why the reference case was developed, and what this might mean for the conduct and use of economic evaluation and decision-making in LMIC.
The Gates-RC is an element of the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), a platform supported by the UK’s Department for International Development, BMGF, and the Rockefeller Foundation, for engaging with and responding to the growing demand for evidence-informed decision-making processes. iDSI involves a partnership between an increasing number of institutions around the world, including NICE international and the Center for Global Development.
Cost-effectiveness studies compare the costs and benefits of different interventions with the aim of improving decisions on the allocation of scarce resources for health. Or, put simply, they allow policy-makers to set priorities for health spending and consider how the next dollar available can get more health for the money.
Successful investments in global health—or “best buys”— can be defined in many ways: a cost-effective commodity or technology, a well-trained health workforce, an evidence-informed policy, etc. We recently hosted an event in partnership with PSI, PATH, Devex, and Merck to discuss this topic, and noted a reoccurring theme: service delivery is key.
I’ve spent a lot of time in international meetings talking about the importance of universal health coverage (UHC), and the technical and practical considerations needed to bring UHC closer to reality. But missing from these discussions is acknowledgement – if not guidance – around UHC’s complex political economy; that when we spend more on health, more is at stake for all the actors in the system.
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.
Universal health coverage (UHC) is now firmly on the global health agenda, and carries with it the ambitious goal of providing “access to key promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative health interventions for all at an affordable cost.” So where do we start? A critical first step to delivering on the aspirations of UHC is deciding which services and policies to prioritize and make available. While resources for health care are growing, they are not infinite and hard choices must be made.