The Global Fund — Sygdomsbekæmpelse

Støtter

The Global Fund invests up to US$5 billion a year to defeat HIV, TB and malaria and ensure a healthier, safer, more equitable future for all. We unite the world to find solutions that have the most impact, and we take them to scale worldwide. It’s working. We won’t stop until the job is finished. Based on the final outcome of US$12.64 billion in total pledges, the Board approved US$10.78 billion in allocations to countries for the 2026-2028 implementation period, complemented by US$260 million for catalytic investments. (Decision Points [ download in English ]). These catalytic investments are designed to accelerate progress in priority areas, such as expanding access to innovative health products through market shaping and strengthening regional manufacturing capacities, thereby amplifying the impact of country grants. An additional US$306 million in private sector funding has been earmarked for catalytic investments. Private sector resource mobilization efforts are ongoing and are expected to further increase the total funding available for catalytic investments. Given the resource-constrained environment and significant changes in global health financing, the Board agreed that grant funding will be allocated in accordance with the key strategic shifts introduced by the Global Fund at the end of 2025 to focus resources toward the poorest countries with the heaviest disease burdens and support countries in accelerating on their path to self-reliance as they work toward ending the three diseases. “Supporting countries to transition away from Global Fund support is not new; what is new is the scale and pace of transition we are now driving,” said Sands. “We will work with countries to reinforce sustainability and accelerate their journey to self-reliance – supporting, incentivizing and, ultimately, getting out of the way. That means tailored transition pathways for every country, backed by stronger national systems, new sources of finance, and sustained access to affordable, quality-assured health products. To navigate this new reality, we have designed the strategic shifts needed to ensure transitions that are responsible and rooted in national contexts and priorities.” The strategic shifts will guide countries in the next grant cycle, with: Greater prioritization of the least-resourced and highest‑burden countries. Defined, predictable transition timelines tailored to national contexts, disease burden and economic conditions. Optimized use of all available resources through rigorous programmatic prioritization, increased co-financing, market shaping, reinforced integration into national health systems, and community systems financing. “As we look ahead to countries’ journeys toward self‑reliance, the people most affected and most vulnerable must stay at the center of everything we do,” said Global Fund Board Vice-Chair Bience Gawanas. “Strong community systems and community‑led responses are fundamental to sustainability, and the Board’s strong backing for efforts to safeguard these systems during transition periods reflects that shared conviction.” Executive Director Peter Sands aligned with the Board in outlining priorities for 2026 and beyond. He stressed the need to maximize the impact of every dollar by accelerating equitable access to game-changing biomedical innovations – highlighting, among others, the continued scale-up of the HIV prevention tool lenacapavir as a top priority, as well as the rollout of innovative near-point-of-care molecular diagnostics for tuberculosis, and faster access to alternative first-line treatments and new vector control tools for malaria, such as spatial emanators. In response to current political and economic realities, Sands reaffirmed – with the Board’s support – the Global Fund’s commitment to continue to transform though implementation of the strategic shifts, and to play a proactive and constructive role in shaping a global health ecosystem that is more collaborative, more coherent and more responsive to country and community priorities, drawing on the strengths of its model – particularly its strong leverage in market shaping, pooled procurement, and civil society- and community‑led interventions.