|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
|
|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
 Steve joined the Center in June 2007. He holds a B.A. in Political Science with Distinction in the Major from Yale University. As an undergraduate, Steve worked as a research assistant on issues of civil war and ethnic conflict, as well as elections and democratization in the developing world. Full BioShowing posts on the Global Health Policy blog. View author posts on: Mixed Reactions to Senate Hearing on Neglected DiseasesJune 29, 2010By Steve Rosenzweig in Global Health Tags: Food and Drug Administration, Global Health Initiative, Neglected Diseases, USAID
Capitol Hill put a spotlight on the process for developing therapies and other products for neglected diseases last week during a congressional hearing featuring CGD visiting fellow Tom Bollyky, but with mixed results. I was encouraged to hear representatives from the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes for Health (NIH) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) commit to do more on neglected diseases. And it was nice to hear Jesse Goodman from FDA emphasize his agreement with many of Bollyky’s key recommendations. But at the end of the hearing, there was still little clarity about what actions and resources the FDA and its partner agencies will commit to in order to improve the development pathway for neglected disease products beyond currently existing programs and initiatives. Read More… 3 Comments »Belt-Tightening at the Global Fund…How About Making It Performance-Based?March 27, 2009By Steve Rosenzweig in HIV/AIDS & Infectious Diseases, HIV/AIDS and other Infectious Diseases Tags: Global FundThe Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an innovative funding mechanism founded in 2002 to fight three killer diseases across the developing world, is currently facing a $4 billion shortfall through 2010, according to the Fund’s Executive Director Michel Kazatchkine. This has led the Global Fund to ask countries to scale back their budgets for the most recent funding round – Round 8 – by 10% ($300 million in total), with the possibility of further cutbacks of up to 25% for the second phase of these 5 year grants if new funding does not come through. Read More… 3 Comments »HIV/AIDS Funding and Health Systems: How do AIDS Donors Interact With National Health Systems?June 12, 2008By Steve Rosenzweig in Donor Community, HIV/AIDS & Infectious Diseases, HIV/AIDS and other Infectious Diseases, News, PEPFARA heated debate has emerged in the global health community over whether or not disease-specific funding, particularly the large sums of donor money for HIV/AIDS, is positively affecting health systems in developing countries (my colleagues Ruth Levine, Mead Over, and Danielle Kuczynski have discussed these issues in previous posts on AIDS spending and health systems, vertical health programs, and “diagonal” approaches to health, see here and here). Is the surge of AIDS money strengthening national health systems? Or is it weakening them by pouring disproportionate funds into systems that target one disease – while neglecting others? Comment »Name That AIDS Program: And the Winner Is…February 29, 2008By Steve Rosenzweig in Donor Community, HIV/AIDS & Infectious Diseases, HIV/AIDS and other Infectious Diseases, PEPFARWe are pleased to announce that the winner of the PEPFAR II Naming Contest is: the AIDS and Healthcare Leadership Program (AIDSHELP), submitted by Nicolas Cook. The name won over 5 other finalists selected from dozens of submissions. In the end, we received nearly 200 votes from countries all across the globe, including the U.S., U.K., Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, and many more. Percentage of the Vote Received By referring to U.S. leadership on AIDS and healthcare, the winning name appears to reflect the feeling among those who voted that the U.S. global AIDS program needs to be better integrated with the important work being done in other areas of global health. Advocates have been successful in mobilizing unprecedented resources for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, but there is a growing consensus that AIDS programs must ensure that they are strengthening overall health systems and having a positive spillover effect on health in general. Many voters also seemed to prefer a name that resembled the original PEPFAR acronym. The second and third place choices had the acronyms APFAR and PEPFAR, and collectively they received more votes than did AIDSHELP. This is likely a reflection of the strong brand recognition that PEPFAR has established in its focus countries, and is something that those in charge of PEPFAR should consider when determining whether and what to rename the program. Congratulations to Nicolas and thank you to all those who participated. Comment »Name That AIDS Program: Your Chance to Vote in the PEPFAR II Naming Contest!February 15, 2008By Steve Rosenzweig in HIV/AIDS & Infectious Diseases, News2/29/08 UPDATE: Voting for the contest is now over. Click here to see the winning name. Now’s your chance to vote in the HIV/AIDS Monitor’s PEPFAR II Naming Contest! The finalists have been selected, so go ahead and vote for your choice to name the next phase of the U.S. global AIDS program. To learn more about the contest and why PEPFAR’s name is due for an update, check out the blog. The finalists are: AIDS and Healthcare Leadership Program (AIDSHELP)
|
|
|
|
CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Third Floor
Washington DC 20036
Tel 202.416.4000 | Fax 202.416.4050
|
|
|
Print
Share
