|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
|
|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
 David Wendt is a Policy Analyst working for the HIV/AIDS Monitor. Full BioGlobal AIDS Donors Share Challenges and Opportunities for Performance-Based FundingMay 13, 2010By David Wendt in Health Systems, HIV/AIDS & Infectious Diseases Tags: Global Fund, PEPFAR, Performance Based Incentives, World Bank, World Bank MAP
On May 10 the HIV/AIDS Monitor invited key officials from OGAC/PEPFAR, the Global Fund for ATM, and the World Bank, and an expert on performance based funding (PBF) to discuss ways in which AIDS donors could improve the use of data about performance in their funding decisions. This panel discussed the findings and recommendations of our new report on PBF (read a blog on this report here, and see the related policy brief here). Nearly 100 attended what turned out to be a lively discussion that highlighted many of the opportunities and challenges facing AIDS donors as they try to apply the principles of PBF. For those who weren’t able to attend in person, below are a few highlights from the discussion, with a few links to related video clips. Read More… 2 Comments »Global Health Initiative Could Lead the Way for Broader Foreign Assistance Reform, but Questions RemainApril 15, 2010By David Wendt in HIV/AIDS and other Infectious Diseases
The Global Health Initiative (GHI) seeks to bring U.S. global health efforts under a coordinated, integrated, sustainable, women-centered, and country-owned umbrella of global health foreign assistance. The U.S. is expected to spend $63 billion on global health over six years (2009-2014). Given the size of this effort, the GHI reforms may be the testing ground for any future reforms of U.S. foreign assistance. Yesterday, the Kaiser Family Foundation held an event and released a new brief (which draws on the comments we submitted on the GHI consultation draft, see below) on the evolving GHI. Unfortunately, no one made an announcement about the selection of GHI+ countries—the “test sites” for the U.S. government’s new approach to global health foreign assistance—or a new draft of the GHI implementation plan, but it was useful to hear from the GHI focal points at USAID (Amie Batson), CDC (Deborah Birx), and PEPFAR (Ann Gavaghan) their interpretations of GHI principles (which are laid out in the consultation draft). These officials have been charged (by their respective bosses) with the responsibility to make the GHI happen, but there is much to be done that wasn’t discussed at the event. Read More… Comment »Weak Incentives are the Weak Link in the Global ARV Supply ChainMarch 24, 2010By David Wendt in HIV/AIDS & Infectious Diseases
The diligent fight against HIV and AIDS has made tremendous progress: thanks to advances in antiretroviral treatment, increased funding, and reduced costs—people can survive and even thrive despite the illness. Unfortunately, for the two-thirds of people still in need of treatment, HIV/AIDS remains a death sentence. Increased funding is necessary to expand access to treatment, but it is not the only solution. Access can also be expanded by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the global ARV supply chains, which has many moving parts and many bottlenecks. Unfortunately, these bottlenecks often persist because influential actors have no incentives to address them. Read More… Comment »Evaluation, Evaluation Everywhere: IOM Progress on Evaluating the Impact of PEPFARJanuary 11, 2010By David Wendt in Evaluation, Monitoring, and Measurement, HIV/AIDS & Infectious DiseasesWithin the beltway and across newspaper headlines, PEPFAR is widely perceived as a very successful US foreign assistance program. Without fail, mentions of PEPFAR’s success all reference the same single measure: currently PEPFAR supports 2.4 million people on ARV treatment. Interestingly, these broad perceptions of success exist despite the fact that, or maybe because, there has never been a systematic evaluation of PEPFAR’s impact. However, that is in the process of changing. In the 2008 re-authorization of PEPFAR, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) was mandated to evaluate the impact of PEPFAR. This is a monumental task. PEPFAR will have spent around US$60 billion over 10 years, through multiple US government agencies and hundreds of partnering organizations, and across dozens of countries and equally many program areas. The IOM has been tasked with figuring out how this immense initiative has changed the world. Read More… 3 Comments »How the Global Fund is Dealing with More Demand than SupplyNovember 17, 2009By David Wendt in HIV/AIDS & Infectious DiseasesAt the Global Fund’s 20th board meeting this month in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the board made funding decisions for Round 9, and for the first ‘learning wave’ of their new National Strategy Applications (NSA). The NSA is an application channel where countries request funding to support strong existing national HIV/AIDS, TB, and/or Malaria strategies. There is a lot of interesting news coming out of the recent board meeting and the funding decisions, which the HIV/AIDS monitor will try to cover in a series of blogs over the coming weeks. Read More… 1 Comment »Heads Up for the U.S. Global Health Initiative: EU Moving Faster?November 2, 2009By David Wendt in Global Health Architecture and GovernanceWashington has been abuzz the past few months over effort to develop a comprehensive global health initiative (GHI). It is hoped that the GHI will connect the dots and put some strategy behind the wide array of health related foreign assistance efforts funded by the U.S. government. While it can be difficult sometimes to see beyond ‘the beltway’, perhaps the U.S. efforts at a ‘global’ strategy should take into consideration similar efforts from around the globe. Read More… 1 Comment »What Happens When You Combine a Newspaper with a Ugandan Village and the Internet?August 24, 2009By David Wendt in Global Health Architecture and Governance, Health Product Innovation and Access Tags: ARC shortagesCompared to Studs Terkel and Jacob Riis, who excelled in their use of popular communication as an instrument for progressive social change, I’m sure many of us who work in development often cringe when issues of poverty are “covered” by our usually schizophrenic, ratings driven news media. Terkel only had audio, and Riis only had images, yet they were able to make profound impacts on how people saw and interacted with the world, contributing to significant social and economic change. As for us, now there are all these new online technologies – video and audio streaming, interactive flash, wikis, and even twitter (for what it’s worth) – but what talent has emerged for using them within development? Read More… Comment » |
|
|
CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Third Floor
Washington DC 20036
Tel 202.416.4000 | Fax 202.416.4050
|
|
|
Print
Share
