With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
With shifting disease burdens, growing uncertainties about the future of development assistance for health, and rising demands for more expensive and complex healthcare comes the need for a greater focus on value for money. International health funders and agencies want to know how to make resources stretch further by focusing on the highest impact interventions among the most affected populations. Whether through more efficient procurement systems and supply chains, results-based financing, or more detailed assessments of the effectiveness of health technology, CGD’s work aims to make health funding go further to save, prolong, and improve more lives.
Decisions about which type of patients receive what interventions, when, and at what cost often result from ad hoc, nontransparent processes driven more by inertia and interest groups than by science, ethics, and the public interest. Reallocating a portion of public and donor monies toward the most cost-effective health interventions would save more lives and promote health equity.
With aid budgets shrinking and even low-income countries increasingly faced with cofinancing requirements, this is the right time for global health funders such as the Global Fund and their donors to formally introduce Health Technology Assessment (HTA), both at the central operations level and at the national or regional level in recipient countries. In this CGD Note, we explain why introducing HTA is a good idea. Specifically, we outline six benefits that the application of HTA could bring to the Global Fund, the countries it supports, and the broader global health community.
Last year, PEPFAR submitted guidelines which encouraged country staff to submit a proposal to conduct an “impact evaluation” (IE) as part of their annual Country Operation Plan (COP). Subsequently, they received four submissions, of which three were funded. But they also learned that many PEPFAR staff – who are mostly program implementers, or the managers of program implementers – didn’t fully understand what they were being asked to do; what does PEPFAR mean by “impact evaluations”?