How Should Global Fund Use Value-for-Money Information to Sustain its Investments in Graduating Countries?

Document Type : Debate


1 Bureau of Health Administration, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand

2 HITAP International Unit, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand

3 Global Health and Development Team, Imperial College London, London, UK

4 Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand


It has been debated whether the Global Fund (GF), which is supporting the implementation of programs on the prevention and control of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, should consider the value-for-money (VFM) for programs/interventions that they are supporting. In this paper, we critically analyze the uses of economic information for GF programs, not only to ensure accountability to their donors but also to support country governments in continuing investment in cost-effective interventions initiated by the GF despite the discontinuation of financial support after graduation. We demonstrate that VFM is not a static property of interventions and may depend on program start-up cost, economies of scales, the improvement of effectiveness and efficiency of providers once the program develops, and acceptance and adherence of the target population. Interventions that are cost-ineffective in the beginning may become cost-effective in later stages. We consider recent GF commitments towards value for money and recommend that the GF supports interventions with proven cost-effectiveness from program initiation as well as interventions that may be cost-effective afterwards. Thus, the GF and country governments should establish mechanisms to monitor cost-effectiveness of interventions invested over time.


Main Subjects

  1. The Global Fund: Resource Mobilization.  Accessed 14 October 14, 2016. Published 2016.
  2. World Development Indicators.  Accessed August 8, 2015.
  3. National Health Accounts in Thailand (2012). Thailand: International Health and Policy Program, Ministry of Health; 2014.
  4. Bundhamcharoen K, Odton P, Phulkerd S, Tangcharoensathien V. Burden of disease in Thailand: changes in health gap between 1999 and 2004. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-53
  5. Tantivess S, Walt G. Using cost-effectiveness analyses to inform policy: the case of antiretroviral therapy in Thailand. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2006;4(1):21. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-4-21
  6. ART Program Management under Universal Health Coverage. Thailand: NHSO; 2014.
  7. Personal communication with Thai Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCM). Thailand; 2015.
  8. Thailand’s National AIDS Spending Assessment (2000-2004). Thailand: International Health and Policy Program, Ministry of Health; 2008.
  9. Chalkidou K, Levine R, Dillon A. Helping poorer countries make locally informed health decisions. BMJ. 2010;341:c3651. doi:10.1136/bmj.c3651
  10. Hass B, Pooley J, Feuring M, Suvarna V, Harrington AE. Health technology assessment and its role in the future development of the Indian healthcare sector. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(2):66-72. doi:10.4103/2229-3485.96449
  11. Mohara A, Youngkong S, Velasco RP, et al. Using health technology assessment for informing coverage decisions in Thailand. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):137-146. doi:10.2217/cer.12.10
  12. Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, Suchonwanich N, Kingkaew P. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(7):397-404. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2014.06.017
  13. Tosanguan K, Kingkaew P, Chaw-Yin M. Short Report: Economic Evaluation of comprehensive HIV prevention interventions targeting those most at risk of HIV/AIDs in Thailand [CHAMPION]. Published 2014.
  14. Teerawattananon Y, McQueston K, Glassman A, Yothasamut J, Myint CY. Health technology assessments as a mechanism for increased value for money: recommendations to the Global Fund. Global Health. 2013;9(1):35. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-9-35
  15. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Fourth Replenishment (2014-2016): The Global Fund’s New Funding Model. The Global Fund; April 2013.
  16. The Global Fund 2017-2019 Funding Cycle.  Accessed February 2, 2017. Published 2017.
  17. Glassman A, Fan V, Over M. More Health for the Money: Putting Incentives to Work for the Global Fund and Its Partners. Center for Global Development; 2013.
  18. Wilkinson T, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. The international decision support initiative reference case for economic evaluation: an aid to thought. Value Health. 2016;19(8):921-928. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015
  19. Dehnavieh R, Noori Hekmat S, Ghasemi S, Mirshekari N. The vulnerable aspects of application of "Health Technology Assessment." Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(3):197-198. doi:10.1017/s0266462315000288
  20. Kenkel D, Suhrcke M. The Economic Evaluation of Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
  21. Asaria M, Griffin S, Cookson R. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(1):8-19. doi:10.1177/0272989X15583266
  22. Verguet S, Kim JJ, Jamison DT. Extended cost-effectiveness analysis for health policy assessment: a tutorial. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:913-923. doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0414-z
  23. Performance Agreement: United Kingdom and The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Department for International Development: 2016.
  24. Fraser N, Benedikt C, Obst M, et al. Sudan's HIV Response: Value for Money in a Low-Level HIV Epidemic. The World Bank; 2014.
  25. 34th Board Meeting Market Shaping Strategy. Global Fund; 2015.
  26. Morton A, Arulselvan A. International aid budgets could go twice as far – here’s how. The Conversation. 2016.
  • Receive Date: 27 October 2016
  • Revise Date: 17 February 2017
  • Accept Date: 18 February 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 September 2017