Until recently, the Global Fund was providing erroneous data for grant agreement amounts and related fields on the grant pages of its website and in the grant data spreadsheets it made available via its website. This problem had apparently persisted for several years. This is the conclusion Aidspan has drawn from an analysis of the Global Fund’s grant data.
With only six months to go before the expected full rollout of the new funding model (NFM), several aspects of the model have not yet been finalised. Decisions still have to be made on the following:
Ethiopia is often cited by the Global Fund as having done a good job of implementing HIV grants and of strengthening the country’s health systems. When he signed two grant agreements worth $424 million with the Ethiopian government in July 2012, then Global Fund General Manager Gabriel Jaramillo said that the country had made great progress in achieving universal coverage of antiretroviral (ARV) treatment.
The Center for Global Development (CGD) has published a “consultation draft” of a report on value for money in global health, with particular reference to the Global Fund. The CGD is seeking feedback on the draft. The deadline for feedback is 12 July 2013.
On 18–19 June 2013, the Global Fund Board held its 29th meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka. GFO was present, with observer status. The main decisions made at the meeting, in chronological order, were as follows. (For precise wording of what the Board agreed, see the decision points document that has been posted here.
In what it describes as a “sea-change,” the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) said that it is moving away from its historical emphasis on country level grants towards “consulting engagements” focusing more on reviewing internal Secretariat processes and the work of other assurance providers.
The people involved in the Global Fund, and in global health generally, “are at an historic moment when the confluence of scientific advancement, epidemiological intelligence and experience from more than a decade of implementation come together to offer the opportunity to end three plagues as public health threats.”
Executive Director Mark Dybul’s first formal report to the Global Fund Board covered a lot of ground.
The OIG says that is has uncovered “credible and substantial evidence” that two suppliers for programmes supported by Global Fund grants in Georgia worked together to steer contracts to each other, and that they were assisted in this effort by several staff members of the principal recipient (PR).
The Technical Review Panel (TRP) has provided feedback on its review of the first wave of concept notes. This article provides a summary of what the TRP said.