The U.S. Global Health Budget: Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request
This budget analysis reviews U.S. funding for global health programs included in the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request released on February 2, 2015.
The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.
KFF’s policy research provides facts and analysis on a wide range of policy issues and public programs.
KFF designs, conducts and analyzes original public opinion and survey research on Americans’ attitudes, knowledge, and experiences with the health care system to help amplify the public’s voice in major national debates.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the organization’s core operating programs.
This budget analysis reviews U.S. funding for global health programs included in the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request released on February 2, 2015.
After Congress provided an unprecedented level of emergency funding for Ebola in FY15 in response to the West African outbreak, beyond regular appropriations for global health programs, FY16 returned to business as usual. There was no additional emergency funding and global health amounts remained essentially flat funding compared to prior years. The FY16 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which was signed into law by the President on December 18, 2015, included an estimated $10.2 billion in funding for global health programs continuing a trend of essentially flat funding since FY10.
As the PEPFAR program approaches its two-decade mark, this new analysis finds the program was associated with large declines in mortality in PEPFAR recipient countries since its creation in 2003, suggesting that future investments will continue to yield significant health impacts.
A new KFF analysis finds the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program was associated with large declines in mortality in PEPFAR recipient countries since its creation in 2003.
This issue brief assesses how the HIV policy landscapes in PEPFAR countries compare to international standards and recommendations. Additionally, we look at the HIV policy landscapes in PEPFAR countries as compared to peer countries. These comparisons are done at the overall, category, and policy indicator level.
In many low- and middle-income countries, PEPFAR and the Global Fund are significant funders of commodities to diagnose, treat, and prevent HIV, along with country governments. But, information on their relative contributions, which is important for assessing the HIV response, is not readily available. We analyzed data from PEPFAR documents on funding for key HIV commodities in 34 PEPFAR countries to better understand the funding landscape.
Includes PEPFAR’s original authorizing legislation, as well as each subsequent reauthorization legislation.
This analysis provides an initial look at how PEPFAR is currently defining and approaching sustained epidemic control at the country level.
The potential for the COVID-19 pandemic to significantly affect the health and development of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, has serious implications for PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This issue brief examines the steps PEPFAR has taken to respond to the outbreak and the issues at stake.
This literature review identifies studies examining the impact of the Mexico City Policy, from 2001 to the present, with particular focus on capturing recent studies assessing the policy under the Trump administration.
© 2026 KFF