To achieve universal health coverage and provide their citizens with access to quality and affordable medicines, countries will need to buy these lifesaving products efficiently and effectively.
CGD Policy Blogs
Since Monday, leading health officials from around the world have been meeting in Geneva, Switzerland for the 72nd World Health Assembly.
In March, our team at the Center for Global Development and Office of Health Economics posted a consultation draft of a policy proposal for a Market-Driven, Value-Based Advanced Commitment (MVAC). The MVAC is a new mechanism that puts middle-income country governments in the driver’s seat to accelerate R&D for diseases that affect the world’s poor—specifically, the 10 million men, women, and children who develop tuberculosis (TB) disease each year and desperately need better therapies.
Innovation is a critical tool in the global fight against disease—especially for tuberculosis (TB), an infectious disease that primarily affects the poor and vulnerable and ranks among the top 10 causes of death in the world.
On World AIDS Day, December 1, we honor the advocates that transformed HIV/AIDS from a death sentence to a chronic disease. These activists bequeathed a golden age of global health—a boom in money and programs that is sustained today, evidenced by the recent reauthorization of PEPFAR. But as UNAIDS recognized last year, we still have miles to go despite this extraordinary mobilization. Even today, 40 percent of people in need still lack lifesaving antiretroviral treatment.
CGD experts explain how the BRICS—home to 40 percent of all cases last year—could provide much-needed leadership on the global TB agenda.
In July, United States Global AIDS Coordinator Deborah Birx made a striking commitment: under her leadership, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) would direct at least 40 percent of its funding to host country governments or organizations by the end of 2019—rising to 70 percent by the end of 2020. The bottom line: PEPFAR’s local targets are commendable in theory, but we suspect their application in practice will prove complicated. Below is our take on the related issues—and some recommendations for PEPFAR to forge the most effective path forward.
In recent years many global health institutions—particularly Gavi and the Global Fund—have adopted eligibility and transition frameworks for the countries they support. These frameworks lay out criteria under which countries will lose eligibility for their support, and, typically, a gradual timeframe to phase out external financing. The question of how these transitions will play out in practice—and whether global health progress will be put at risk through premature or poorly planned transitions—is a hot topic in global health.
We finally have some clarity on PEPFAR’s new “acceleration” strategy toward epidemic control: a lot more allocated to a few countries, and a lot less for others.
At CGD, we believe that the thoughtful application of economic theory and evidence can help build a better world. This conviction is clearly shared by Dr. Jean Tirole, Nobel laureate in economics and chairman of the Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).