Ashley Bennett

Dr Margaret Chan, WHO director-general opens the assembly. Photo: WHO The 68th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva wrapped up last week after addressing several items that will shape the next few years of global health innovation. While we’re very excited by the progress made, much hinges on the connections between this year’s assembly decisions, the finalization of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and next year’s WHA, which will likely have an even greater focus on global health research and development (R&D). Here are some highlights from the last two weeks: First, there were several decisions that will impact the work of the entire global health community: WHO budget increase approved Member states approved WHO’s proposed program budget for 2016-17, increasing the biennial budget by US$236 million—a five percent increase from the previous cycle. The renewed push for malaria elimination through the Global Technical Strategy for Malaria was mentioned as one of the reasons behind the funding increase. Work on non-State actors’ engagement framework continues The Assembly also welcomed a report on progress of a draft framework for engagement with non-State actors—including nongovernmental organizations, private-sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and academic institutions—noting that it wishes to finalize the framework by the next WHA. Delegates requested that the director-general convene an intergovernmental meeting as soon as possible and submit a finalized draft for adoption at next year’s WHA, as well as submit a register of non-State actors. Delegates acknowledged the importance of WHO engaging with non-State actors, which may facilitate greater alliances between WHO and nonprofit product development organizations, as well as global health innovation advocacy groups. It was also a big week for global health innovation: Pooled R&D fund, CEWG recommendations progress WHO delegates consider draft resolutions. Photo: Pierre Albouy/WHO Member states officially noted a report outlining the role the WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases would play in hosting and managing a pooled R&D fund. The fund, which will be financed by voluntary contributions, is intended to support R&D for new technologies to meet the needs of low- and middle-income countries. Priorities areas for the fund will be identified by the WHO Global Health Research Observatory, which will be formally launched in January 2016. It remains to be seen how the structure of the observatory will ultimately be implemented, and how that will impact the work of the pooled fund. The pooled fund and observatory were developed as a result of recommendations from a 2012 report by the WHO Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination (CEWG) which was looking for ways to fund R&D for and achieve access to treatments and technologies for diseases predominantly impacting the poor. To demystify this conversation, GHTC and the Council on Health Research for Development cosponsored a live event and webinar at WHA that examined approaches to incentivizing global health R&D and ensuring access to technologies. The discussion featured panelists from PATH, Médecins Sans Frontières, Cipla, and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. The webinar is available on demand here. Timeframe for global strategy on public health, innovation, and intellectual property extended Member states also agreed to extend the timeframe for action on The Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (GSPA) from 2015 to 2022. The GSPA was adopted by members in 2008 “to promote new thinking on innovation and access to medicines.” The agreement also extends the timeframe of an overall program review of the global strategy on its achievement, remaining challenges, and recommendations on the way forward. A panel of experts to conduct the evaluation will not be established until early 2017, with their report to be presented at the 71st WHA in 2018. WHO endorses Global Vaccine Action plan which includes support for R&D During discussion around the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), member states approved a resolution that includes language directed at strengthening WHO’s prequalification program, which provides tentative evaluation of new vaccines and medicines. The resolution also included a call for increased capacity-building for R&D, technology transfer, and other elements of vaccine development. Ebola epidemic prompts creation of new emergency response capabilities, greater emphasis on development of new technologies As the Ebola outbreak in West Africa winds down, WHO’s efforts and preparedness for future health emergencies was a hot topic at the Assembly. Delegates welcomed WHO's commitment to make important changes in its emergency response work. Through an approved resolution, WHO will establish a new emergency response capability based on all-hazards preparedness with an emphasis on adaptability, flexibility, accountability, humanitarian principles, predictability, opportunity and country ownership. WHO also plans to establish a contingency fund of $100 million to finance emergency field operations for up to three months. R&D language was also included in the resolution, which supports the development of a ‘blueprint’ for accelerating R&D in epidemics or health emergencies where few or no technological solutions exist. WHO approves global malaria strategy which emphasizes importance of research and innovation Delegates showing support for the proceedings. Photo: WHO Member states approved the Global Technical Strategy for Malaria, which aims to eliminate malaria in at least 35 countries by 2030. The strategy emphasizes the importance of research and innovation, and the need for political commitment, sustainable financing, strong health systems, and collaboration across different sectors. Dr. Pedro Alonso, head of the Global Malaria Program, cited R&D as a necessary endeavor to reach the lofty elimination goals outlined in the strategy.WHO adopts global plan to combat antimicrobial resistance   A key item under discussion by governments was the draft WHO Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) which was approve by member states. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, opened the Assembly by calling AMR "an issue of crucial importance to humankind." Germany has made AMR a key priority during their current chairmanship of the G7. The plan calls for countries to put in place by 2017 systems to monitor drug resistance. It also calls for reductions in overuse of antibiotics and for more investment in new drugs and other health technologies. GHTC member RESULTS, along with the Stop TB Partnership and Global Health Advocates, highlighted the need for drug-resistant tuberculosis to be central to the AMR Global Action Plan throughout the Assembly, and the Global Health Council and Global Health Advocates France delivered a statement calling for drug-resistant TB to be central to the plan and included in the Communiqué of the G7 Summit.Role of Health in SDGs discussed As the finalization of the SDGs approaches this fall, the Assembly discussed the need to secure a strong role for health goals in the overarching framework, and adopted a resolution urging member states to emphasize, among other priorities, “medical products, vaccines and technologies.” Through the Global Health Council, GHTC presented a statement highlighting the need to include health innovation targets and indicators in the SDGs. Looking ahead to the 69th WHA: Several R&D topics to be revisited In comparison with last year’s WHA, this year’s agenda did not include as much substantive decision-making regarding global health R&D activities, such as the global health R&D observatory, the ongoing pilot demonstration projects, or the previously proposed R&D treaty. These topics will be revisited at the 69th WHA in 2016. Regulatory strengthening expected to be discussed We also expect that regulatory systems strengthening will be on the agenda in 2016, an area that is of interest to the US delegation in particular. Since the 2014 Ebola outbreak, interest has been revived in strengthening the involvement of stringent regulatory authorities, like the US Food and Drug Administration, in supporting quick review of emergency tools, as well as building capacity for regulation and increasing regulatory harmonization around the world. As you can see, it was a very busy few weeks! We’re pleased with the outcomes from the WHA, but also see a need to ensure that the important agreements and resolutions are carried forward by member state governments and partners. Hopefully with the upcoming final post-2015 discussions and the next WHO Executive Board meeting only six months away, we’ll see the momentum for global health R&D continue.

The African Leaders Summit highlighted several initiatives to stimulate innovation. Photo: PATH/Gabe BienczyckAs the first-ever US-Africa Leaders Summit came to a close last week, it was clear that the energy around the partnerships between the United States and African nations are strong and building momentum. This was perhaps best exemplified by the enthusiasm in the room as President Obama and the First Lady spoke to a large crowd at the Young Africans Leadership Initiative symposium—an event that illustrated the Summit’s theme of ‘Investing in the Next Generation.’ Forty-five African heads of state gathered with US government officials and advocates to forge a path forward for partnership between the United States and African nations. Importantly, amid these discussions were several calls for initiatives to stimulate science, technology, and innovation as a way to harness African nations’ growing interest and capacity for locally-driven solutions.The summit was a busy few days with a flurry of announcements. We’ve seen over $37 billion in commitments announced by the US government and various stakeholders, including several targeting health issues like malaria, preventable childhood death, and reproductive, maternal, and newborn health. But beyond the state dinners and the official speeches—and the huge array of side events and discussions—what does the Summit really mean for global health innovation? What will its practical impact be? Here are four key takeaways:1. There is a paradigm shift taking place from traditional forms of aid to new multi-sectoral partnerships for developmentAs major US bilateral global health and development programs have shifted (as others have noted) from providing emergency relief toward more sustainable development models based on trade partnerships and private sector investment, support for science and innovation infrastructure and programming is evolving as well. There is growing recognition that new health technologies no longer emerge from one country’s labs or a handful of Western research institutes, but instead from all corners of the globe. This new paradigm was robustly reflected throughout the Summit.2. The United States is ready to shake up the status quo to support innovationAt several Summit events such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)-hosted symposium on Innovation and Impact, it was clear just how global the innovation ecosystem has become. National academies for science and technology and new public-private partnerships are growing capacity for innovation and product development in countries that previously had little or none. It is essential to ensure that new tools are acceptable and accessible to the populations that need them and that local research and innovation efforts are supported. Our global system of funding, introducing, and scaling new health tools must adapt to make this a reality. There are signs that the US government recognizes this shift and is ready to explore new ways of promoting innovation—such as leveraging the new US Agency for International Development (USAID) Global Development Lab to support new models of collaboration. Dr. Lona Stoll—director of the Center of Global Solutions at the Lab—called on participants to partner in breaking down barriers to innovation, and to this aim, USAID announced last week that it will be contributing $1.5 million to the World Bank’s regulatory harmonization trust fund to support regulatory harmonization efforts in Africa—a notable start.3. The world is watching: Will these commitments have teeth?The exciting commitments and pledges lauded at the Summit must be more than just words. While many funding and technical assistance commitments were made, in the next few months we’ll see if the United States and its allies in the private sector and other sovereign states fulfill their promises. Many across the health, science, and development sectors are wondering how pledges made this month will be tracked and reported on. In order to bolster global health research and development partnerships with African states, commitments made last week must also be carried forth to other global discussions—such as those around the post-2015 sustainable development goals—in order to maximize their impact.4. To fight threats to health in Africa and elsewhere, we need to act nowAs the White House outlined, in our increasingly interconnected world, the US government needs a coordinated, proactive global health approach that brings the full force of US expertise in research, and innovation to the global fight against disease. There is no example as prescient as the current Ebola outbreak in Western Africa to illustrate the urgent need for strong US government support for an adaptive global health system and investment in new vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and other global health tools.

Last week, we reported on exciting policy language included in the Senate Department of Defense appropriations legislation, and earlier this summer, the House and Senate State and Foreign Operations bills also included recognition of the role that new technologies could play in advancing global health. Today we have even more good news to report: The Senate Appropriations Labor and Health and Human Services (LHHS) Subcommittee released its own fiscal year (FY) 2015 appropriations legislation, after a lengthy internal debate on domestic health concerns. Senate supports global health R&D in LHHS appropriations bill. Photo: NIAID Senate calls for increase in NIH funding; still lags behind need The legislation covers funding and policy issues for several key global health research programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Office of Global Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At GHTC we’ve voiced concern that funding for NIH has lagged behind both inflation and the research program needs of the agency. Last week, we learned that the Senate LHHS appropriations subcommittee has appropriated $30.6 billion for NIH—which represents an increase of $606 million over FY 2014. This is a welcome increase; however, as the subcommittee noted in its report introduction, NIH’s funding is still unacceptably low, even with this improvement. Report language supports global health programming at NIH Within NIH, several key research centers were funded at reasonable levels, including the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease. The committee expressed its support for continued funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), microbicides, and antibiotic research, as well as government-wide research collaboration, among other priorities. In an exciting move, the committee also included NCATS report language requesting that NCATS include a report in its FY 2016 budget justification “on initiatives targeted at neglected diseases and global health conditions, with specific focus on global health technologies and devices.” Global health is an essential part of NCATS’s mandate, and this language will ensure that it is prioritized within the program. CDC global health programming receives increased funding in bill The legislation also provides strong support for research at the CDC’s global health programs. Under the bill, the National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) would receive an increase over FY 2014 funding levels. In addition, the subcommittee’s report mentions the Chikungunya outbreak in the Caribbean and the United States and encourages coordination between NCEZID and the CDC’s Center for Global Health on global health security efforts. Speaking of the Center for Global Health, this program received a rare increase in the Senate bill over even the President’s FY 2015 budget request. This is likely a result of support for the new Global Health Security Agenda. Most notable was the inclusion of a new line item in the Center’s budget for “Global Health Protection.” The bill also included positive language on CDC’s work on malaria and NTDs and provided continued funding for the National Public Health Institutes—an epidemiology and research capacity-building program in select countries. House LHHS bill has not been released; continuing resolution likely The House Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee has not released a bill for FY 2015 and may not do so at all. As it looks more likely that a continuing resolution will be necessary to continue uninterrupted government funding for NIH, HHS, and CDC global health R&D programs, Congress should work to come to an agreement that robustly supports funding and smart policy improvements for these programs. Ashley Bennett is GHTC’s policy officer.

As the DC summer kicks into full swing, Congress has had a busy month moving forward fiscal year (FY) 2015 funding legislation for a variety of government programs including global health research and development (R&D). Global health R&D at USAID: Yesterday, both the House and Senate State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) appropriations subcommittees held mark-ups of their draft bills. The House draft provides only topline spending numbers, with the addition of family planning/reproductive health, polio, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Global Fund funding levels. The House funded the overall account above the White House request, but below what was appropriated in FY 2014. Including the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) numbers, funding was $132 million below the numbers Congress appropriated in FY 2014, but a welcome $257 million more than what the White House had requested. For a quick comparison of numbers, check out the Kaiser Family Foundation’s SFOPs policy analysis. The other accounts called out in the House bill were $59 million for polio (the same as FY 2014, but 18 percent higher than the President’s request) and family planning at $461 million. Funding for family planning was a significant but not unexpected cut from both the FY 2014 number (24 percent cut) and the White House request (28 percent cut). As the full House appropriations committee has not yet marked up the bill (and it’s not clear that they will), details on the contents of the bill report’s priorities and other policy riders are not yet known. We do know the House bill reinstates the Mexico City Policy—which prevents nongovernmental organizations who receive federal dollars from promoting abortion services as part of family planning­—or prohibits any funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The full committee may take the bill up for consideration sometime next week. The Senate summary provides considerably more specific account figures for global health than the House bill. The Senate bill flat-funds the Global Fund and PEPFAR compared with FY 2014 and is even with the White House request—it’s interesting to note that for this overall account, the House bill appears to provide a higher funding level, even though we don’t yet know the exact funding distribution. Most other accounts were funded at levels either matching or slightly above FY 2014 funding. One exception is the tuberculosis (TB) account, which faces an $11 million cut from FY 2014 levels, although it is not as dire as the proposed White House funding level, which would have cut an additional $23 million. There is better news to be found for family planning and reproductive health, neglected tropical diseases, polio, and vaccine access. There’s no explicit word in either the House or Senate bills regarding the overall Maternal and Child Health account. NIH, CDC, and FDA Last week the Senate held its Labor, Health, and Human Services (LHHS) subcommittee mark-up and released a summary of their draft bill. A full Senate committee mark-up has yet to be scheduled, and the House has yet to move forward with its own draft bill. This account remains one of the most contentious, both because of ongoing efforts to alter the health care reform programs and because of a Senate plan to use the Overseas Contingency Operations account as a complicated and likely unsustainable mechanism to boost up funding for domestic priorities. The committee requested $30.459 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase to both the White House and FY 2014 levels by $324.0 million and $605.7 million, respectively, but still far less than the $32 billion needed. Global health programs within both NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also did quite well in the Senate bill—the CDC’s Centers for Global Health and Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Fogarty International Centers were nearly all funded at levels above both FY 2014 and the White House request. Both the House and Senate have also marked-up their legislation to fund the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The House bill funds the FDA at $2.583 billion (this number represents budget authority and does not include user fees), which is a $23 million increase over FY 2014 and is about level with the White House request. The Senate bill funds the FDA at $2.588 billion, an increase of $36 million over FY 2014. The Senate is taking up this bill as part of a “minibus” along with the bills from the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, the Transportation subcommittee, and the Housing and Urban Development subcommittees. The Senate version of the bill also included some interesting report language around FDA’s international leadership to combat threats to global health and the global drug supply chain.  Defense The House Appropriations Committee approved their FY 2015 bill which essentially flat funds Department of Defense (DoD) R&D—which includes all research at DoD, not just neglected disease R&D—from FY 2014 levels. The American Association for the Advancement of Science provides a helpful summary of R&D funding within the draft bill which can be found here. The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to mark-up a bill. In both the House and Senate, we see policymakers diverging from the priorities emphasized by the White House in its original budget request: there is little mention of any implementation of the infamous Opportunity, Growth, and Security account suggestions for global health or health research, although the Senate Appropriations Committee has developed its own plan for handling the declining budget caps while still supporting accounts they view as important to US health research programs. While the progress we’ve seen so far is commendable, Congress must speed its efforts to enact smart, evidence-based appropriations for global health R&D programs and their overarching accounts. As the end of the current fiscal year looms closer, policymakers must work together to avoid the stalemate that caused the government shutdown of the fall of 2013 and should support strong funding levels for global health R&D.

Yesterday, the White House released President Obama’s much-anticipated budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2015. After hearing that the budget would be released in two phases, we weren’t sure what level of detail or clarity to expect from the top-line numbers. As it turns out, the message is murky—for now. Below are some initial takeaways on the budget proposal’s impact on global health research and development (R&D). State and USAID Global Health Programs While funding for the overall 150 international affairs account remained fairly stagnant compared with FY 2014, funding for the State Department’s global health programs—which fund most global health R&D at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department—took a concerning downward shift, falling by 4.6 percent overall. The Maternal & Child Health, Tuberculosis, and Global HIV and AIDS programs that fund research for many new global health tools all saw decreases to varying degrees when compared with the levels that Congress just approved for them in its FY 2014 budget agreement. There were a few ‘winners’—a relative term only; USAID’s Malaria and Family Planning programs saw small increases, and GAVI—which works to scale up currently available vaccines—saw its request increased by $25 million over FY 2014. As many in the community have voiced, the flat-funding of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—coupled with a possible $300 million decrease in the US’s contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria—is disappointing, if not unexpected. Funding for the State Department’s global health programs—which fund most global health R&D at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department—took a concerning downward shift, falling by 4.6 percent overall. Although these cuts are concerning, the President’s budget request did indicate that the administration is aware of the need for sustained global health R&D programming and recognized the important role that USAID plays in fostering innovation. The President requested $146.3 million for the new Global Development Lab at USAID, which “will consolidate and expand USAID's efforts in science, technology, innovation and partnerships, creating a world-class capability to discover, incubate, test, and scale transformational solutions to the greatest development challenges that we face today.” However, according to the budget justification text, only about $5 million of this funding will go to global health programs.   Global Health R&D at NIH, CDC and FDA The President requested $30.2 billion for funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a slight increase from 2014 appropriations levels of $29.9 billion, but still lower than the President’s request for FY 2014—continuing a troubling decline. It is estimated that NIH’s funding has decreased 15 percent since FY 2004. Within the NIH, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was funded at $4.423 billion, a 3.4 percent decrease from the President’s request for 2014, but a slight increase from the 2014 appropriated budget of $4.359 billion. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science saw a slight cut from FY 2014 appropriations and previous requests, while the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Fogarty International Center were essentially flat-funded. There was potentially better news for global health R&D funding at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The President requested a total of $464 million for CDC’s Center for Global Health—a significant increase over FY 2014. CDC’s Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases also received a welcome increase. Both of these CDC centers are involved in the new Global Health Security Agenda programming. While the budget text says that the President requested $45 million for the new initiative, it’s not yet clear where this funding will come from. In more positive news, the President also requested just over $4.7 billion for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), allaying fears that the strong FY 2014 funding ($4.3 billion) would not be continued. The funding also assumes $2.612 billion in user fee income. Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative Adding to the opaque nature of several parts of the global health and science accounts within the President’s budget request is the new $56 billion Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. Funds in this category include the $300 million that would go to the Global Fund if other nations are able to increase their own commitments, as well as other funding that would go to NIH and the Science, Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (STIP) in Development program via the new Global Development Lab at USAID. It’s still unclear whether this money will be allocated as stated, and many in the global health community are concerned that it would draw funds away from other health-related programs that have already been flat-funded or seen cuts. While we’re still waiting for more figures for NIH and the Department of Defense’s global health R&D programs, and details from additional budget justification documents—it’s clear that Congress has its work cut out for it in protecting global health R&D programming across the US government. When the appropriations committees from the House and Senate develop their own proposals later this spring, they should work to sustain and protect global health research and product development at USAID, CDC, NIH, FDA and the Defense Department in order to keep up the fight against global health diseases.  

  As 2014 gets into full swing, the GHTC is looking ahead to many exciting developments on both the global health research and development (R&D) and policy landscapes: A step in the right direction: Policymakers in Congress recently passed both a budget deal for fiscal year (FY) 2014 and FY 2015, as well as a final appropriations package for FY 2014. The package included mixed results for global health research, however the compromise may hallmark a step towards a more “normal” appropriations process for FY 2015. We’ll be watching to see if policymakers boost support for the accounts—like those at the National Institutes of Health—that were hammered by the shutdown and budget sequester. Progress towards new malaria tools: In late 2013, GHTC member Medicines for Malaria Ventures received expedited regulatory approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to move treatment candidate tafenoquine into Phase III trials. And, the most recent clinical trial results of the RTS,S malaria vaccine candidate, released last year by partners PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), have spurred excitement that the vaccine may be WHO-approved by 2015. To start the process, GSK announced plans to submit a regulatory application through the European Medicines Agency later this year. 21st Century Global Health Technology Act: Now that Congress has finalized its FY 2014 budget and moved on to other priorities, at the top of our list is the 21st Century Global Health Technology Act. The legislation was introduced in April of 2013 in the House of Representatives by Reps. Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and boosts global health R&D programming at the US Agency for International Development. Rumors are a companion Senate version is coming very soon, so stay tuned! Exciting new research is coming up in 2014. Photo: PATH/Evelyn Hockstein R&D takes the stage at WHO: The World Health Organization (WHO) has made some progress in implementing the health R&D resolution it passed in 2013—including reviewing proposals for demonstration projects aimed at promoting R&D for medical products. The World Health Assembly will have eight finalists to choose from at its meeting this May. Horizon 2020 begins: In late 2013, the European Union approved €80 billion in funding for Horizon 2020—the European Parliament’s framework for research and innovation. This represents an increase in funding compared with previous years, and includes an emphasis on public-private partnerships for research. It will be interesting to see how this program affects the global health R&D landscape. State of the Union: This time last year, we were anticipating the start of President Obama’s 2nd term, and what shifts in agency and congressional leadership would mean for US global health research programs. The 2012 and 2013 State of the Union addresses emphasized harnessing innovation to make progress in health, education, and other areas. We’ll be watching this Tuesday night to see how the President plans to build on progress made in the remainder of his term. A new era for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: In other Administration news, Dr. Deborah Birx was recently nominated to be the new US Global AIDS Coordinator. Dr. Birx currently heads the Global HIV and AIDS program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and previously ran the Military HIV Research Program (MHRP) at the Department of Defense. We’re excited to see a leader in global health research take the reins of one of the US government’s most important global health programs. Pending her confirmation, it will be intriguing to see where Dr. Birx takes the agency, and how research for new global health tools will play a role. All health is global: Speaking of the CDC, two of the five most pressing health priorities that CDC’s Director Dr. Tom Frieden identified in a recent interview involve big impacts in global health research: eradicating polio and combating disease that originates outside of the United States. Between new research advancements and policy progress, there is clearly a lot we’re excited about for 2014. What new developments in global health R&D are you looking forward to? Ashley Bennett is GHTC's policy officer.