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.
Using publicly available information, we describe all seven DIBs, and evaluate the three “health DIBs” in more detail, comparing their stakeholders, implementation, and outcome structures. We offer three recommendations to improve evaluation and inform development of DIBs in the future.
Rwanda’s performance-based incentives were effective for some indicators, but unconditional financing also induced improvements. The incentive effects persisted in the medium-run and as the program was scaled-up.
Many low- and middle-income countries aspire to universal health coverage (UHC), but for rhetoric to become reality, the health services offered must be consistent with the funds available, which may require tough tradeoffs. An explicit health benefits package—a defined list of services that are and are not subsidized—is essential in creating a sustainable UHC system.
This report of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program summarizes the rationale for continued U.S. investment in global health, looks into the evolution of the Global Health Initiative, and recommends a re-boot for the whole enterprise.
More than ever, global health funding agencies must get better value for money from their investment portfolios; to do so, each agency must know the interventions it supports and the sub-populations targeted by those interventions in each country. In this study we examine the interventions supported by two major international AIDS funders: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (‘Global Fund’) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
The Global Fund’s New Funding Model (NFM) was approved by its Board more than a year ago, representing what the Fund’s Director Mark Dybul called “a new beginning” to “achieve greater impact in the lives of people affected by HIV and AIDS, TB and malaria.
At a panel session during the 4th Conference of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) held in Washington, DC, a group of distinguished speakers and leaders on health in China – from the China Medical Board, top universities and the Ministry of Health – were tasked with discussing and elaborating on China's role in global health. The speakers briefly discussed China's history in international health activities (their first deployment of medical teams to Africa dates back to 1963!), different kinds of partnerships in global health - particularly among universities, and examples of current and upcoming initiatives. In sum, the panel suggested a promising future for China’s role in global health.
Policy makers on Capitol Hill have some pressing policy issues to tackle in the coming weeks (like reaching an agreement to fund the government and raising the debt ceiling). Fortunately, one bill that landed on their desk last week shouldn’t require much debate: The PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act of 2013.