According to a press release from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the fund’s Board on Friday “voted to adopt a new approach to funding grants that will enable the organization to invest the world’s money more strategically and for greater impact.” The press release notes “the new funding model will change the way implementers apply for financing, get approval of their proposals and then manage their grants,” and it describes the changes in more detail. “In its decision, the Board agreed that the new model should enhance participation by all stakeholders, including civil society and will support continued funding for the needs of most-at-risk populations, so that concentrated epidemics are taken into consideration,” the press release states, adding, “The Board also requested a regular evaluation of the new funding model, and asked the Board’s Strategy Investment and Impact Committee to continue working out the details of the funding model so that implementation can begin in 2013” (9/14).
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).
Global Health Funding Cuts Threatening Fight Against HIV, TB In Eastern Europe, Central Asia, NGO Report Says
The fight against HIV and tuberculosis (TB) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is being threatened by cuts in global health funding, according to “a report [.pdf] by leading European non-governmental health organizations,” Reuters reports. In the report, “experts called on the European Union to step in to fill the gaps left by global donors to countries within and neighboring its borders,” the news service notes. According to Reuters, “[c]ountries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have some of the world’s fastest growing HIV epidemics,” and “Europe is also home to the world’s highest documented rates of drug-resistant TB” (Kelland, 9/18).
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).
Amanda Glassman, director of global health policy and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development (CGD), and Kate McQueston, a program coordinator at CGD, write in the center’s “Global Health Policy” blog that a reduction in AIDS funding to Ethiopia from PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria “might be warranted due to epidemiological trends and improved efficiency, or might cripple progress as health programs dependent on external donors are cut back,” but “with the current poor status of basic information on beneficiaries and costs, it’s difficult to judge whether these cuts are good or bad.” They outline the history of AIDS funding in Ethiopia, posit what future funding might encompass, and say additional information is needed from PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and the Ethiopian government in order to know the true impacts of reduced funding (9/11).
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).
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.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has published Issue 8 of its newsletter, the “Global Fund News Flash.” The issue reports on the Board’s approval of a new funding approach; says “the Board extended the mandate of the Global Fund to host the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria for another year after the end of its pilot phase in December”; notes the Global Fund adopted a code of conduct for grant recipients; and profiles Linda Mafu, head of civil society and political advocacy at the Global Fund (9/20).
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.
“In mid-July, … the near-final draft of the independent evaluation of the Affordable Medicines Facility — Malaria (AMFm) was released,” Victoria Fan, a research fellow at the Center for Global Development (CGD), and Heather Lanthorn, a doctoral candidate at Harvard School of Public Health, write in this post in the center’s “Global Health Policy” blog. “Never intended to be an experiment or quasi-experiment, the pre-post evaluation of the AMFm has so far been interpreted cautiously and optimistically; we’re encouraged by this,” they write. “But given that the evaluation considers trends in the outcomes of interest before and after AMFm in only the chosen AMFm countries, the evaluation lacks a counterfactual or comparison group,” they continue and detail the findings of the report. They conclude, “Regardless of what is decided for the next phase of AMFm, we strongly recommend that resources be allocated for, at a minimum, tracking outcomes more frequently and also in the non-AMFm countries” (9/4).