In his LA Times article on December 16, Charles Piller addresses the very real possibility that the extraordinary amount of funding now flowing to poor countries to combat individual diseases might undermine other health sector capabilities.
CGD Policy Blogs
Yesterday in anticipation of World AIDS Day on December 1, UNAIDS released a dramatic update of the numbers they provide every year: the estimated number of people who are HIV infected in each country and in the world at large. As the Washington Post announced this morning, the surprise this time is that the numbers went down from last year, not up.
Last week, my colleague April Harding blogged about the recent debates on the most effective strategies for increasing coverage of insecticide-treated nets. She took to task Dr. Arata Kochi, head of WHO's malaria program, for promoting free distribution campaigns rather than the multi-prong strategies recommended by his own organization, among others. Dr.
On Wednesday, UNAIDS published "Financial Resources Required to Achieve Universal Access to HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support" to present the world with a bottom line: $50 billion a year.
One of the most controversial subjects in global health is the topic of user fees for health services and commodities. Ever since Nancy Birdsall, David de Ferranti and John Akin declined to rule out user fees as a useful source of health financing way back in 1987, the World Bank has been pilloried for "advocating user fees" in the health sector, which the Bank has never done.
CGD held a fascinating lunchtime discussion earlier this week with "scientist morphed into journalist" Helen Epstein, about her new book, The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS.
*This post is co-authored by Michael Bernstein
Last week, the New York Times reported on recent findings that the combination of one inexpensive antibiotic pill each day and sleeping under an insecticide-treated mosquito net can reduce the incidence of malaria by 97 percent in HIV-positive children in Uganda. If the results hold up to further analysis and critical review, this study can be understood as further support for the proposition that a combination of malaria interventions can do substantially better against malaria than any single intervention by itself.