The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released two reports on issues related to global health. In “Ensuring Drug Quality in Global Health Programs,” the agency writes, “Concerns have been raised about the potential for substandard drugs to enter the supply chains of global health programs,” and notes that it concluded, “U.S.-funded global health programs have put regulatory and policy requirements in place to help prevent procurement of substandard drugs” (8/1). In another report looking at the WHO, titled “Reform Agenda Developed, but U.S. Actions to Monitor Progress Could be Enhanced,” GAO found, “The United States has provided input into WHO’s reform agenda, particularly in the areas of transparency and accountability, but the Department of State’s (State) tool for assessing progress in the area of management reform could be enhanced” (7/23).
“The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria [on Monday] released the funding recommendations of its Technical Review Panel for the Transitional Funding Mechanism,” the Stop TB Partnership reports in an article on its webpage. “Grant proposals for tuberculosis (TB) received 25 percent ($127.4 million) of all the approved funding ($510 million) — a marked increase over the historic average share of 16 percent since the Global Fund was established in 2002,” the article notes, adding, “TB applications were also most successful, with an 86 percent recommendation rate; malaria applications engendered a 79 percent recommendation rate and HIV proposals a 62 percent recommendation rate” (8/21).
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).
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, 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).
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).
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).
UNICEF has released its 2012 partnership profiles, “short case studies which highlight specific partnership initiatives at global, regional and country levels” and “illustrate how partnerships have contributed to results, either the creation of innovation, policy advocacy, evidence generation, or provision of essential services,” according to UNICEF’s Partnerships webpage. Some of the organizations highlighted include the GAVI Alliance (.pdf), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (.pdf), and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (.pdf) (9/17).
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).
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).