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.
Rachel Silverman is a senior policy analyst and assistant director of global health policy at the Center for Global Development, focusing on global health financing and incentive structures. During previous work at the Center from 2011 to 2013, she contributed to research and analysis on value for money, incentives, measurement, and policy coherence in global health, among other topics. Before joining CGD, Silverman spent two years supporting democratic strengthening and good governance programs in Kosovo and throughout Central and Eastern Europe with the National Democratic Institute. She holds a master's of philosophy with distinction in public health from the University of Cambridge, which she attended as a Gates Cambridge Scholar. She also holds a BA with distinction in international relations and economics from Stanford University.
Last September, we released a report on how the Global Fund could get more health for its money. In it, we offered concrete suggestions for improvements in several different value-for-money domains, all with an eye toward maximizing the health impact of every dollar spent.
Another year, another attempt at harmonizing global health data collection. This time around, the effort comes from a multiagency working group comprised of representatives from donor agencies and international organizations, in collaboration with IHP+.
In recent years, the interdisciplinary nature of global health has blurred the lines between medicine and social science. As medical journals publish non-experimental research articles on social policies or macro-level interventions, controversies have arisen when social scientists have criticized the rigor and quality of medical journal articles.
Break out the firecrackers and balloons – and water and soap: today is Global Handwashing Day! And while today's significance may get lost in the very busy calendar of Global Health "holidays", this one really does deserve special celebration.
Last week, the Government of India held a star-studded National Summit on child survival, “co-convened”* with USAID and UNICEF. The high-profile meeting featured politicians (the Minister of Health & Family Welfare, the US Ambassador to India), heavy-hitters in global child health (Bob Black, Zulfiqar Bhutta, Mickey Chopra, Geeta Rao Gupta) along with some Indian stars of child health (Vinod Paul, Abhay Bang, Yogesh Jain), and even a Bollywood actress/“child rights activist” Nandana Sen (daughter of Nobel Laureate and Professor Amartya Sen), to name a few.
This week, representatives from 50-plus countries gathered in Brussels for the “She Decides” conference, raising about $190 million in pledges to support women’s reproductive and sexual health and rights around the world. This is great news, but the relatively small absolute scale of the pledges highlights the challenge of substituting for US financial and political leadership.
As the largest bilateral donor in global health, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is unequaled in its reach and impact. Yet despite its larger-than-life profile, we’ve found that the details of its implementation arrangements and decision-making often remains obscure to the longstanding chagrin of globalhealthobservers. Among the common questions: Where does scarce PEPFAR funding go? Which countries and implementers receive the bulk of PEPFAR funds? And what factors influence PEPFAR’s allocation of resources across recipient countries?
The new US administration may put US funding for family planning—comprising nearly half of all bilateral contributions—at risk. The family planning community still has time to make the case for sustained US funding, protecting the gains that it has already achieved. But smart advocacy should also be accompanied by contingency planning—what would it mean for the United States (US) to substantially cut its support?
Last week, I attended a conference on South Africa’s national health insurance (NHI), which was hosted in Pretoria by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC). A key recurring theme and consensus emerged: South Africa must develop a clearer plan and strategy for the “piloting” phase of its national health insurance.
Some background: In 2011, the government of South Africa committed itself to providing all of its citizens with “a defined package of comprehensive (health) services” through national health insurance. While the details are still up in the air, the government issued a preliminary policy paper which estimated NHI to cost R255 billion (~US$30 billion) per year by 2025, if implemented as planned over a 14-year period.