This week the Global Fund Board will determine whether to “expand, accelerate, terminate or suspend the Affordable Medicines Facility – malaria (AMFm).” Ideally, the Board would make an evidence-based decision. However, both the sufficiency and the relevance of available technical evidence have been questioned (see here and here). The role of political and process evidence is also not very transparent. Below, we lay out our understanding of the potential options and the factors the Board should consider.
CGD Policy Blogs
There was bad news in research published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine about the effectiveness of what had seemed to be the best prospect for a malaria vaccine, known by the unsexy name of 'RTS,S'.
The study of the phase III trials finds that in babies (aged 6-12 weeks) the vaccine only reduces malaria by less than a third. This is disappointing because this is less than half the effectiveness that had been suggested by the phase II clinical trials.
Not surprisingly, development issues played no role in the recent US presidential election. Perhaps surprisingly, immigration reform is now a major second term agenda. CGD has been promoting migration as not just a domestic but also a development issue for some time, with my Let Their People Come, the Place Premium, new empirical research that shows the massive gains to unskilled labor mobility, the inclusion of migra
In my first blog on recently published impact evaluations by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), I argued that MCC has set a new standard for systematic learning about development programs. In this blog, I’m addressing a second set of questions related to the design and use of impact evaluations
This is a joint post with Heather Lanthorn.
The Global Fund Board’s decision over the Affordable Medicines Facility – malaria (AMFm) rapidly approaches, and tensions within the malaria community are acute. In her global health blog for The Guardian, Sarah Boseley characterizes the rift as one of
“huge arguments and intense passions…[because] it is about the belief on one side that the private sector is the most effective way to get medicines to those who need them – and the certainty on the other side that bolstering the public sector to diagnose and treat people is a fairer and safer way to go. These are not just practical matters, but highly political.”
The Journal of African Economies has a new special issue out in November on "Impact Evaluation in Africa", co-edited by Marcel Fafchamps of Oxford and Andrew Zeitlin of Georgetown who is a part-time colleague here at CGD.
While each of the papers is interesting on its individual merits, the collection itself addresses two broad debates.
1. What is impact evaluation, and how should we be doing it?
Happy November 7! The election is over and…things pretty much look the same way they did before. While I don’t expect the political gridlock in Washington to abate much over the next years, global health fortunately remains one of the few areas of bipartisan consensus in US policy. When dollar values are taken out of the equation, most policy makers can agree that saving lives of mothers, children and families from preventable, treatable diseases reflects American values and contributes to a safer, healthier world. Here are five things that should be at the top of the President’s global health agenda for the next four years.
This is a joint post with Kate McQueston.
"Every country, no matter how wealthy or how impoverished, cannot afford to waste money in healthcare on health technology that does not contribute to health."
These words were spoken by Harvey V. Fineberg, the President of the Institute of Medicine, at a recent event co-hosted by CGD and PAHO, which highlighted the importance of supporting health technology assessment (HTA) in the Americas. Low-and middle-income countries are increasingly interested in building capacity for priority setting, particularly in regards to public funding in a time where pressures to incorporate costly new technologies are on the rise and donor contributions are stagnating. Over the past five years Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Croatia, Estonia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, and Uruguay have also added health technology assessment agencies—tasked with varying responsibilities, including the generation or coordination of health technology assessment and budget impact analysis, as well as the creation recommendations for coverage or reimbursement decisions related to public spending.