Dear subscribers

As the time of the Seventh Replenishment Pledging Conference draws nearer, we examine the thorny issue of how much the Global Fund can reasonably expect poor countries to contribute, especially when their own health systems could do with a large cash injection. Our first article covers domestic resource mobilization for health, Who should pay for healthier and longer lives in Africa? and is based on a media roundtable held as a side event during the World Health Assembly in late May. This is followed by a critical look at the way we determine the targets for how much countries should invest in their health systems. We argue that the old measurements are outdated, and one size does not fit all (Today’s health financing targets are redundant). Maybe you think this is contentious? Or do you agree? We would love to get a debate going on this very topical subject.

Our news from the field is an update on one of the Global Fund’s most successful Strategic Initiatives: Differentiated HIV Service Delivery Strategic Initiative shows encouraging results. It showcases the preliminary results from four African countries. We then cover two reports by the Office of the Inspector General, on Kenya and South Africa. The same old problems make for depressing reading; and we also ask why the Agreed Management Actions have such a long timeframe.

Finally, we would like to draw your attention to the call for new Technical Review Panel members: Global Fund launches its 2022-2025 Technical Review Panel recruitment. Please try to circulate the call for applications as widely as possible

And please do provide Likes (or Dislikes) and Comments under the articles: without feedback, we cannot improve or give you more (or less) of what you want (or don’t want).