Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Global Health. 2011 October 12; Volume 7 (Issue 39); DOI:10.1186/1744-8603-7-39
Moon S, Jambert E, Childs M, von Schoen-Angerer T
Global Health. 2011 October 12; Volume 7 (Issue 39); DOI:10.1186/1744-8603-7-39
BACKGROUND
Tiered pricing - the concept of selling drugs and vaccines in developing countries at prices systematically lower than in industrialized countries - has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to medicines for the poor. We carried out case studies based on a review of international drug price developments for antiretrovirals, artemisinin combination therapies, drug-resistant tuberculosis medicines, liposomal amphotericin B (for visceral leishmaniasis), and pneumococcal vaccines.
DISCUSSION
We found several critical shortcomings to tiered pricing: it is inferior to competition for achieving the lowest sustainable prices; it often involves arbitrary divisions between markets and/or countries, which can lead to very high prices for middle-income markets; and it leaves a disproportionate amount of decision-making power in the hands of sellers vis-à-vis consumers. In many developing countries, resources are often stretched so tight that affordability can only be approached by selling medicines at or near the cost of production. Policies that “de-link” the financing of R&D from the price of medicines merit further attention, since they can reward innovation while exploiting robust competition in production to generate the lowest sustainable prices. However, in special cases - such as when market volumes are very small or multi-source production capacity is lacking - tiered pricing may offer the only practical option to meet short-term needs for access to a product. In such cases, steps should be taken to ensure affordability and availability in the longer-term.
SUMMARY To ensure access to medicines for populations in need, alternate strategies should be explored that harness the power of competition, avoid arbitrary market segmentation, and/or recognize government responsibilities. Competition should generally be the default option for achieving affordability, as it has proven superior to tiered pricing for reliably achieving the lowest sustainable prices.
Tiered pricing - the concept of selling drugs and vaccines in developing countries at prices systematically lower than in industrialized countries - has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to medicines for the poor. We carried out case studies based on a review of international drug price developments for antiretrovirals, artemisinin combination therapies, drug-resistant tuberculosis medicines, liposomal amphotericin B (for visceral leishmaniasis), and pneumococcal vaccines.
DISCUSSION
We found several critical shortcomings to tiered pricing: it is inferior to competition for achieving the lowest sustainable prices; it often involves arbitrary divisions between markets and/or countries, which can lead to very high prices for middle-income markets; and it leaves a disproportionate amount of decision-making power in the hands of sellers vis-à-vis consumers. In many developing countries, resources are often stretched so tight that affordability can only be approached by selling medicines at or near the cost of production. Policies that “de-link” the financing of R&D from the price of medicines merit further attention, since they can reward innovation while exploiting robust competition in production to generate the lowest sustainable prices. However, in special cases - such as when market volumes are very small or multi-source production capacity is lacking - tiered pricing may offer the only practical option to meet short-term needs for access to a product. In such cases, steps should be taken to ensure affordability and availability in the longer-term.
SUMMARY To ensure access to medicines for populations in need, alternate strategies should be explored that harness the power of competition, avoid arbitrary market segmentation, and/or recognize government responsibilities. Competition should generally be the default option for achieving affordability, as it has proven superior to tiered pricing for reliably achieving the lowest sustainable prices.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Global Health. 2020 July 9; Volume 16 (Issue 1); 54.; DOI:10.1186/s12992-020-00582-3
Schwerdtle PN, Irvine E, Brockington S, Devine C, Guevara M, et al.
Global Health. 2020 July 9; Volume 16 (Issue 1); 54.; DOI:10.1186/s12992-020-00582-3
Climate change is adversely affecting health by increasing human vulnerability and exposure to climate-related stresses. Climate change impacts human health both directly and indirectly, through extreme weather events, changing distribution of health risks, increased risks of undernutrition, population displacement, and greater risks of injuries, disease, and death (Ebi, K., Campbell-Lendrum, D., & Wyns, A. The 1. 5 health report. WHO. 2018). This risk amplification is likely to increase the need for humanitarian support. Recent projections indicate that under a business as usual scenario of sustained greenhouse gas emissions, climate change could double the demand for humanitarian assistance by 2050 (World Health Organization. Operational Framework for building climateresilient health systems. WHO. 2015). Humanitarian assistance is currently not meeting the existing needs, therefore, any additional burden is likely to be highly challenging.
Global health advocates, researchers, and policymakers are calling for urgent action on climate change, yet there is little clarity on what that action practically entails for humanitarian organizations. While some humanitarian organizations may consider themselves well designed to respond, climate change as a transversal threat requires the incorporation of a resilience approach to humanitarian action and policy responses.
By bringing together authors from two historically disparate fields - climate change and health, and humanitarian assistance – this paper aims to increase the capacity of humanitarian organizations to protect health in an unstable climate by presenting an adapted framework. We adapted the WHO operational framework for climate-resilient health systems for humanitarian organizations and present concrete case studies to demonstrate how the framework can be implemented. Rather than suggest a re-design of humanitarian operations we recommend the application of a climate-lens to humanitarian activities, or what is also referred to as mainstreaming climate and health concerns into policies and programs. The framework serves as a starting point to encourage further dialogue, and to strengthen collaboration within, between, and beyond humanitarian organizations.
Global health advocates, researchers, and policymakers are calling for urgent action on climate change, yet there is little clarity on what that action practically entails for humanitarian organizations. While some humanitarian organizations may consider themselves well designed to respond, climate change as a transversal threat requires the incorporation of a resilience approach to humanitarian action and policy responses.
By bringing together authors from two historically disparate fields - climate change and health, and humanitarian assistance – this paper aims to increase the capacity of humanitarian organizations to protect health in an unstable climate by presenting an adapted framework. We adapted the WHO operational framework for climate-resilient health systems for humanitarian organizations and present concrete case studies to demonstrate how the framework can be implemented. Rather than suggest a re-design of humanitarian operations we recommend the application of a climate-lens to humanitarian activities, or what is also referred to as mainstreaming climate and health concerns into policies and programs. The framework serves as a starting point to encourage further dialogue, and to strengthen collaboration within, between, and beyond humanitarian organizations.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Global Health. 2016 September 14; Volume 12 (Issue 1); 54.; DOI:10.1186/s12992-016-0190-8
Greenberg A, Kiddell-Monroe R
Global Health. 2016 September 14; Volume 12 (Issue 1); 54.; DOI:10.1186/s12992-016-0190-8
In recent years, the world has witnessed the tragic outcomes of multiple global health crises. From Ebola to high prices to antibiotic resistance, these events highlight the fundamental constraints of the current biomedical research and development (R&D) system in responding to patient needs globally.To mitigate this lack of responsiveness, over 100 self-identified "alternative" R&D initiatives, have emerged in the past 15 years. To begin to make sense of this panoply of initiatives working to overcome the constraints of the current system, UAEM began an extensive, though not comprehensive, mapping of the alternative biomedical R&D landscape. We developed a two phase approach: (1) an investigation, via the RE:Route Mapping, of both existing and proposed initiatives that claim to offer an alternative approach to R&D, and (2) evaluation of those initiatives to determine which are in fact achieving increased access to and innovation in medicines. Through phase 1, the RE:Route Mapping, we examined 81 initiatives that claim to redress the inequity perpetuated by the current system via one of five commonly recognized mechanisms necessary for truly alternative R&D.Preliminary analysis of phase 1 provides the following conclusions:
1. No initiative presents a completely alternative model of biomedical R&D.
2. The majority of initiatives focus on developing incentives for drug discovery.
3. The majority of initiatives focus on rare diseases or diseases of the poor and marginalized.
4. There is an increasing emphasis on the use of push, pull, pool, collaboration and open mechanisms alongside the concept of delinkage in alternative R&D.
5. There is a trend towards public funding and launching of initiatives by the Global South.
Given the RE:Route Mapping's inevitable limitations and the assumptions made in its methodology, it is not intended to be the final word on a constantly evolving and complex field; however, its findings are significant. The Mapping's value lies in its timely and unique insight into the importance of ongoing efforts to develop a new global framework for biomedical R&D. As we progress to phase 2, an evaluation tool for initiatives focused on identifying which approaches have truly achieved increased innovation and access for patients, we aim to demonstrate that there are a handful of initiatives which represent some, but not all, of the building blocks for a new approach to R&D.Through this mapping and our forthcoming evaluation, UAEM aims to initiate an evidence-based conversation around a truly alternative biomedical R&D model that serves people rather than profits.
1. No initiative presents a completely alternative model of biomedical R&D.
2. The majority of initiatives focus on developing incentives for drug discovery.
3. The majority of initiatives focus on rare diseases or diseases of the poor and marginalized.
4. There is an increasing emphasis on the use of push, pull, pool, collaboration and open mechanisms alongside the concept of delinkage in alternative R&D.
5. There is a trend towards public funding and launching of initiatives by the Global South.
Given the RE:Route Mapping's inevitable limitations and the assumptions made in its methodology, it is not intended to be the final word on a constantly evolving and complex field; however, its findings are significant. The Mapping's value lies in its timely and unique insight into the importance of ongoing efforts to develop a new global framework for biomedical R&D. As we progress to phase 2, an evaluation tool for initiatives focused on identifying which approaches have truly achieved increased innovation and access for patients, we aim to demonstrate that there are a handful of initiatives which represent some, but not all, of the building blocks for a new approach to R&D.Through this mapping and our forthcoming evaluation, UAEM aims to initiate an evidence-based conversation around a truly alternative biomedical R&D model that serves people rather than profits.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Global Health. 2011 September 29; Volume 7 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/1744-8603-7-33
Ford NP, Calmy A, Mills EJ
Global Health. 2011 September 29; Volume 7 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/1744-8603-7-33
ABSTRACT: The past decade has seen remarkable progress in increasing access to antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings. Early concerns about the cost and complexity of treatment were overcome thanks to the efforts of a global coalition of health providers, activists, academics, and people living with HIV/AIDS, who argued that every effort must be made to ensure access to essential care when millions of lives depended on it. The high cost of treatment was reduced through advocacy to promote access to generic drugs; care provision was simplified through a public health approach to treatment provision; the lack of human resources was overcome through task-shifting to support the provision of care by non-physicians; and access was expanded through the development of models of care that could work at the primary care level. The challenge for the next decade is to further increase access to treatment and support sustained care for those on treatment, while at the same time ensuring that the package of care is continuously improved such that all patients can benefit from the latest improvements in drug development, clinical science, and public health.