Snapshot review of Two World Bank COVID-19 Health support programs in Egypt 2. The loan had to have an active status. 3. Countries outside the MENA region must be in the “lower middle income” bracket. 4. The loan had to have an approval date that preceded or succeeded the Egyptian loan approval date by two months. This meant that some COVID-19 loans aimed at combating the negative effects of the pandemic on social welfare were excluded from the analysis. Countries that had funding similar to the activation of the contingent emergency response component (CERC) of the “Transforming Egypt’s Healthcare System” project were also excluded. This was because those did not have sufficient information available regarding the implementation of these components. The first two conditions guaranteed the contextual comparative weight. Whilst the third condition derived its importance from the fact that a wide variance in the approval dates of loans meant comparing loans in different stages of the loan life cycle; potentially yielding an inaccurate/invalid analysis. Information used in the data set was all extracted from the World Bank website for each project. Most of these factors were important in establishing foundational comparative grounds for analysis. However, the two factors utilized for the comparative analysis, mainly through visual representation through bar graphs, were a) the amount disbursed is represented as a percentage of the commitment amount (as the commitment amounts granted to countries vary based on population size), and b) the progress in the Project Development Objective (PDO) indicators, which are the outlined measurable end targets for each project. These two were selected for the purpose of examining the progress of the Egyptian loan in relation to other loans. The analysis took into account other factors that were included in the raw data table, but not the chart. A third factor was examined and that was “access to information”, this was assessed through the criterion of document availability. The two documents selected were procurement plans and implementation and status results report. The former as it allows us access to fund utilization and the latter for its self-explanatory label. If the collected information was deemed sufficient for field impact evaluation: E. Field community assessments and interviews regarding the implemented interventions (based on the collected data) with key stakeholders. In practice however, the collected information was highly insufficient to be able to verify the status of implementation of the interventions on target populations or beneficiaries. Limitations and Challenges Due to the absolute lack of needed information, components of the methodology involving field reviews or stakeholders consultations were excluded. Beneficiary consultations are important pillars in health-oriented research, especially when it is patient / stakeholder oriented. Therefore, 4