Full paper here if you want to dive deeper into our models and projections

www.cgdev.org/publication/...

This is *not* a wholesale solution. It involves trade-offs & raises unresolved policy questions, but it offers many benefits:
1. It ⬇️dependence on donors
2. It provides a transition pathway🛣️for countries
3. It brings health money💰 on-budget
4. It stretches donors' contributions further ↗️

Our main finding: If the Global Fund introduced this approach in 2026, reflows could reach up to $1 billion per year by 2033, that's roughly 20% of its current yearly disbursements

Drawing inspiration from elements of the World Bank’s model, we project a scenario where the Global Fund would continue to provide 💵 grants for low-income countries but would introduce loans 🏦 for middle-income countries

Amid widespread donor retrenchment, global health institutions, like the Global Fund, are facing an uncertain funding outlook. Given this new reality, we argue it's time to rethink the donor-dependent, grants-based model that the Global Fund has long relied on

Vaccines are a global health best buy, so it's unfortunate Gavi is in this position at all

Nevertheless, Gavi's Board and leadership faces some tough choices on how to prioritize

We offer 5 options we see as the "least bad" choices, that yield savings while preserving Gavi's impact

We argue that @gavi.org should prioritize a dual mandate:

1) Stabilize vaccine budgets in the poorest countries

2) Transform the financing model over time through a radically simplified “New Compact Envelope Financing” approach