I found your comments about the methodology a bit confusing. Are these estimates for what the impact would have been, if PEPFAR hadn’t been largely restored, or what it actually will be?
We first assigned these forecasts during a period in which it appeared that foreign aid might be reduced to effectively zero. After substantial outcry, some funding has been reinstated. Charles Kenny and Justin Sandefur,1 of the Center for Global Development, have compiled estimates of total USAID cuts by sector and by country. Some areas, such as infrastructure and civil society, appear likely to be hollowed out entirely. Others, like maternal health and agriculture, may continue at only a tenth of their previous funding. The most critical programming, at least in terms of immediate mortality impacts, such as PEPFAR, malaria, and nutrition assistance, appear likely to persist, albeit in a heavily reduced form — around 70% of its previous funding for HIV/AIDS, 50% for TB, and 40% for nutrition.
...
We estimate that the combined impact of the projected cuts to these five programs will result in between 483,000 and 1.14 million excess deaths over one year.
Speaking just for myself (RE: malaria), the topline figures include adjustments for various estimates around how much USAID funding might be reinstated, as well as discounts for redistribution / compensation by other actors, rather than forecasting an 100% cut over the entire time periods (which was the initial brief, and a reasonable starting point at the time but became less likely to be a good assumption by the time of publication).
Yes it’swhat it would have been based on the original cuts. Things completely different now that funding for medication has been restored. The predictions of malaria and HIV deaths resulting from the cuts would now be slashed I would guess by over 80 percent I think because the numbers were based on medication shortages.
Thanks for comissioning this work and sharing it.
I found your comments about the methodology a bit confusing. Are these estimates for what the impact would have been, if PEPFAR hadn’t been largely restored, or what it actually will be?
Speaking just for myself (RE: malaria), the topline figures include adjustments for various estimates around how much USAID funding might be reinstated, as well as discounts for redistribution / compensation by other actors, rather than forecasting an 100% cut over the entire time periods (which was the initial brief, and a reasonable starting point at the time but became less likely to be a good assumption by the time of publication).
My 1 year / 5 year estimates without these discounts are approx. 130k to 270k and 720k to 1.5m respectively.
Yes it’swhat it would have been based on the original cuts. Things completely different now that funding for medication has been restored. The predictions of malaria and HIV deaths resulting from the cuts would now be slashed I would guess by over 80 percent I think because the numbers were based on medication shortages.