Filling the need for trusted information on health issues…

Trending on kff Enrollment Marketplaces Medicare Advantage

Global Fund

  • your selections
Clear Search

Filter Results

date

Tags

  • results
Negative Effects Of Global Health Initiatives On Developing Countries' Health Systems Exaggerated, Review Shows

“An evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effects of global health initiatives on the health systems of developing countries concludes that the harmful effects have been exaggerated,” according to a press release from the Royal Society of Medicine. The systematic review, published on Wednesday in JRSM Short Reports, “found that much of the research literature did not fulfill the requirements of rigorous scientific evidence,” according to the press release. “The systematic review identified 24 studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 2002 and 2009 that have commented on adverse effects on health systems arising from investments by the Global Fund,” the press release states, adding, “All the studies evaluated contained only seemingly anecdotal evidence or authors’ perceptions or interpretations of circumstances” (10/24).

Study Identifies Three Organizations Successfully Using Innovative Financing For Global Health

Researchers from Imperial College London, the Harvard Global Equity Initiative, and Harvard School of Public Health “have identified three global organizations that new funding initiatives should emulate in order to meet health priorities in poorer countries, in research published [Thursday] in the journal the Lancet,” Imperial College London reports in an article on its webpage. The study, “a comprehensive review of new funding methods that raised money for health in developing countries between 1990 and 2010 … found that the GAVI Alliance, … the Global Fund [to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria], and UNITAID, … were the sole organizations whose innovative financing methods had raised and distributed funds on a global scale,” the article notes, adding, “The authors concluded that innovative financing is essential to reduce dependence on contributions from donor governments. These innovative instruments provide a different way of raising money from new sources and making it available to address global health problems” (10/25).

Aidspan Publishes New Issue Of 'Global Fund Observer'

Aidspan, an independent watchdog of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, on Thursday published Issue 199 of its “Global Fund Observer.” The issue features an article on a diagnostic review of Global Fund grants in Peru; a commentary by Aidspan’s David Garmaise on language used in the Global Fund’s Office of the Inspector General reports; an article looking at Global Fund grants to Nigeria, which include $50 million in “new” money to purchase bed nets; as well as several other articles (10/18).

Case Stories Describe Technical Support For Global Fund Grant Recipients

On its website, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance describes a new publication, titled “Of Spices and Silk: Sharing Stories of Technical Support to Global Fund Grants in Asia,” which presents 11 case stories showing how the Alliance’s regional Technical Support Hubs have provided assistance to Global Fund grant recipients (9/27). “The case stories were written during a writeshop held in Bangkok in August 2012 where participants were invited to use a narrative structure to reflect on and draw out their experiences working as consultants providing technical support for Global Fund grants,” the report homepage states (9/25).

AP Examines Future Of AMFm Following Conflicting Reports On Program's Success

The Associated Press examines the debate over the future of the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm), after the recent release of two papers evaluating the program’s effectiveness. AMFm was established in 2010 as “a pilot project to subsidize artemesinin combination drugs, the most effective malaria treatment,” the AP writes, noting the $460 million program is managed by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. “Last week, a report by Oxfam, an international charity, labeled the program a failure and said there was no proof it had saved lives because officials didn’t track who received the drugs,” the news service writes, adding, “But in another paper published Wednesday in the journal Lancet, experts insisted the program was ‘an effective mechanism’ to lower the price of preferred malaria drugs and make them widely available.” The Global Fund is scheduled to discuss the future of the program at a meeting next month, according to the AP (Cheng, 10/31).

Global Fund Board Members Discuss New Funding Allocation Model Amid Some Concerns From TB Advocates

The board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria began a two-day meeting in Geneva on Thursday, “with one topic high on the agenda: a new funding model,” Devex’s “Development Newswire” reports. “The board will tackle aspects of a new funding model, which, according to Global Fund Director of Communications Seth Faison, ‘will change the way the Global Fund has made grants for 10 years,’” the news service writes, adding that the model, according to the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, “will see the Global Fund dropping its ’round’ grant-making process and replacing it with a ‘more flexible’ system.” In addition, “an ‘iterative dialogue process’ is also reportedly being explored,” Devex reports. “The proposed reforms seem good for the fund and its beneficiaries … [b]ut some have expressed their concerns on the funding model under consideration, specifically on the ‘historical disease application’ approach,” the news service writes (Ravelo, 9/13). According to an article on the Stop TB Partnership website, the new approach “would cap the proportion of funding available to tuberculosis (TB) projects at 16 percent,” and the proposal, “which is based on the proportion of grants awarded to TB in the past, met with strong objections from the community of people working on TB worldwide” (9/13).

Podcast Examines Global Health Funding In 'Austere Budget Climate'

In this episode of the Center for Global Development’s (CGD) “Global Prosperity Wonkcast,” CGD’s Lawrence MacDonald interviews Amanda Glassman, a senior fellow and director of the global health policy program at the center, about global health funding in “this austere budget climate.” In an accompanying blog post, MacDonald notes “generating ‘value for money’ (VFM) is a top concern for global health funding agencies and their donors, who want the biggest bang for their buck in terms of lives saved and diseases controlled.” According to the blog, the discussion focuses on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, “a multilateral agency that emerged from the G8 meeting process in 2002 when times were better and global health was seen as an area where money could make a difference” (9/5).

First Phase Of Global Fund-Managed AMFm Shows Success In Bringing Malaria Drugs To Clinics

The Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm) — an innovative financing mechanism that subsidizes the cost of artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) in order to expand access to the most effective treatment for malaria — “brought more than 100 million doses of malaria drugs to clinics and pharmacies in 2011” and “also increased access to the top malaria medicines by 26 to 52 percent in six countries,” according to results from the first phase of the program, which is hosted and managed by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, NPR’s “Shots” blog reports. The results of the evaluation, released on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., do not estimate how many lives were saved because of improved access to effective malaria medications, as “AMFm ran for only a year and half in most countries,” according to the blog. “The AMFm negotiated with drugmakers to reduce ACTs prices, and then the Global Fund subsidized the initial purchasing of the drugs by clinics and pharmacies,” the blog notes.

Devex News Analysis Examines Democratic, Republican Party Platforms On Foreign Policy, Including Global Health

A Devex news analysis examines the Democratic and Republican platform positions on foreign policy following the party conventions, writing, “Even as pocketbook concerns continue to overshadow foreign policy issues on the campaign trail, in both Charlotte and Tampa, top-billed speakers made the case for the U.S. foreign aid program.” The article examines the core principles of each platform, notes that neither platform offers specifics on foreign aid spending, and discusses the platforms’ stances on certain foreign policy issues, including global health, food security, climate change, and gay rights.

Developing Countries NGO Delegation To Global Fund Submits Report Highlighting Challenges, Recommendations

The Center for Global Health Policy’s “Science Speaks” blog discusses a report by the developing countries NGO delegation to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, submitted recently to the Global Fund Secretariat. “Covering procedures involved in program planning, spending, accounting and in responding to realities on the ground, some of the issues it raises are likely to be addressed in the global charity’s new funding model, but some may not be, a delegation representative wrote in response to an inquiry from ‘Science Speaks,’” the blog notes and highlights some of the challenges and recommendations contained in the report (Barton, 9/4).