Making the Case in the United States for Global Health Commitments Post-MDGs

Global Health Forum

April 19, 2017

Responding To: Georgetown Reflects on CUGH 2017: "Healthy People, Healthy Ecosystems: Implementation, Leadership, and Sustainability in Global Health"

Making the Case in the United States for Global Health Commitments Post-MDGs

Ben Brown

The 8th Annual Conference held by Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) in Washington, D.C. was the first global health meeting I have attended since enrolling at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business in 2015. Prior to going back to get my MBA, I worked in the field of global health and international development as a researcher and consultant. After not being fully immersed in this sector for nearly two years, it struck me how much the tone and messaging from academic experts and practitioners has changed in such a short time period—going from discussions about implementation science and how we get the best minds and practices to address large-scale global health challenges, to how can we convince our policymakers that global health is even worth investing in.

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, CUGH and other large-scale global health programs have been successful largely as a result of the unprecedented increases in funding from the U.S. government and resources around the world following the launch of the Millennium Development Goals. “Increases reached 11.3% annually during (2000-2010) … With $35.9 billion in DAH disbursed in 2014, total funding for global health has hovered around $35 billion for four consecutive years.”

However, with significant budget cutbacks being proposed to U.S.-funded global health research and programs, CUGH and other influencers in this field must think more strategically about how they communicate the importance of maintaining consistent sources of funding. During an opening day panel at the CUGH Conference, Mark Dybul, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, asserted that the way we currently package and present global health data and recommendations to U.S. policymakers is not effective in convincing them that global health funding commitments are worth it relative to other domestic issues. We can agree that access to a healthy life is a human right, but the same can be argued for education, finances, and housing. However, we know there are enormous payoffs from investing in health, where for every $1 invested can generate economic benefits between $9 to $20 in low- and middle-income countries. As international commitments become more ambitious and aid resources become increasingly constrained, I believe policymakers will only be swayed by the case for global health investments if it is positioned in terms of improving efficiency and maximizing the impact of their investments. A “value for money” case must be made; one that aims to reduce costs, increase impact per dollar spent, and focus investments on the highest impact interventions among the most affected populations.

Relatedly, national security should be tied into this messaging. Throughout the CUGH Conference, a good deal of attention was placed on infectious pandemic threats and that there will inevitably be more in the not-too-distant future. This is a formula that should get policymakers’ attention and hopefully resurrect global health as a top priority in the next decade to come.

Ben Brown is a MBA candidate at the Georgetown McDonough School of Business.