[Ip-health] Former WTO Director-General, Pascal Lamy, mooted to chair Global Fund's Equitable Access Initiative

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Wed Nov 12 00:43:28 PST 2014


Former WTO Director-General, Pascal Lamy, mooted to chair Global Fund's
Equitable Access Initiative

http://keionline.org/node/2123

Submitted by thiru <http://keionline.org/user/6> on 11. November 2014 -
14:01

On 14 March 2014, KEI published "Resurrecting the Ghost of Høsbjør Past:
Global Fund seeks to establish global framework on tiered pricing enforced
by WTO rules" <http://keionline.org/node/1979> in which we provided an
analysis of the Global Fund's plans to create a global framework for tiered
pricing enforced by the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Professor Brook Baker's perspicacious critique, Industry-Led,
Tiered-Pricing,or Country-Led, Real Equitable Access – the Global
Fund’s,Task Force Proposal,Gets Worse Instead of Better
<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Baker.Global-Fund%C2%B9s-Task-Force-Proposal-Get-Worse-Instead-of-Better-1.pdf>
and
IP-Watch's seminal piece, Global Fund And Tiered Medicines Pricing Under
Debate
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/04/07/global-fund-and-tiered-medicines-pricing-under-debate/>
provide
more insight.

As we reported then, the Global Fund announced the following goal with
respect to the creation of a global framework on tiered pricing:

We anticipate that the framework will have lasting influence and will be
considered by the G20, the World Trade Organization (WTO), or other
relevant institution within 24 - 36 months of development. The Task Force
will conduct formal outreach to these institutions during the project.
Establishing processes to enforce a framework, likely through the WTO, will
be time consuming. It will be important to implement models in the near
term as global agreements are created.

*Mark Dybul, Executive Director, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria*

In October 2014, KEI obtained new documents providing new information on
the Global Fund's Equitable Access Initiative (EAI) including a a
discussion note providing "Draft Terms of Reference for the Equitable
Access Initiative", "Timelines and Proposed Activities of the EAI Working
Group" and a table with Proposed Expert Panel Members for the Equitable
Access Initiative. The new focus of this initiative appears to be on
developing a "new health classification framework to help countries
transition their health programs more smoothly"

The project outcomes and deliverables of the Global's Fund EAI are as
follows:

The EAI Working Group will work inclusively with a Panel of Experts,
modeling groups, and our key stakeholders to analyse and introduce a new
health classification framework, to help countries transition their health
programs more smoothly - as they move along the development continuum. As
part of the deliverable, the EAI will explore how to measure i) countries'
capacity for co-financing and - ii) in-country institutional capacity - as
key components of health capacity, that are replicable and usable as
coefficients.

The duration of this project is from 1 December 2014 to 1 May 2016 with the
first Expert meeting proposed to take place on 19 January 2015.

According to the Global Fund documents, Georgetown University, the alma
mater of the Global Fund's Executive Director, Mark Dybul, is the
third-party project manager of this initiative. Prior to his tenure at the
Global Fund, "Dybul was co-director of the Global Health Law Program at the
O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown
University, where he was also a Distinguished Scholar" (Source, Global Fund
biography of Mark Dybul
<http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/about/organization/executivedirector/>).
The Wellcome Trust appears to be the primary funder of this initiative as
evidenced by this text,

The EAI Working Group will:

4. Ensure that the third-party project manager (i.e. Georgetown University)
works according to an agreed project management plan;

5. Ensure that Georgetown University prepares written reports on the EAI,
against project milestones to the Wellcome trust - and future funders of
the EAI;

7: Approve all public disclosures relating to the Project - including
presentations, posters and papers - (provided that the contributions of the
Wellcome Trust and other funders is acknowledged in all such publications,
quoting relevant award numbers). The intellectual property (IP) of the
resulting work products would be owned by the Partnership - and made
available in the public domain;

In terms of an organizational structure, there appears to be an EAI Working
Group, a Panel of Experts, and a Co-Convenor Technical Group. From the
documents in KEI's possession, not much can be gleaned about the
composition or structure of the EAI Working Group. According to informed
sources, the Co-Convenor Technical Group may consist of functionaries from
the Global Fund and possibly, GAVI, UNICEF, UNDP, UNITAID and the World
Bank. It is unclear at this stage what the role if, if any, the WHO or WTO
secretariats will play in Dybul's grand plan. The proposed Expert Panel
members include some well-known names: Pascal Lamy, former Director General
of the WTO, proposed Chair, Donald Kaberuka, President of the African
Development Bank, proposed Vice-chair, Larry Summers, Former Secretary of
the Treasury of the United States, Peter Piot, Director of the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Awa Coll-Seck, Minister of Health
and Social Action, Senegal, Justine Greening, Secretary of International
Development, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Christopher Elias, President of Global Development Program, Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, Mercedes Juan Lopez, Minister of Health, Mexico,
Trevor Manuel, Minister in the Presidency for the National Planning
Commission, South Africa, Nafsiah Mboi, Minister of Health, Indoneisa,
Aaron Motsoaledi, Minister of Health, South Africa, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,
Minister of Finance, Nigeria, Ali Bongo Indimba, President of Gabon, Edwin
Cameron, Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Lawrence
Gostin, Professor of Global Health Law, Georgetown University and Michael
Kirby, Justice of the Australian High Court.

It should be noted that the Global Fund discussion paper does not indicate
whether any of the names proposed as Expert Panel Members have confirmed
their participation. The Expert Panel Members will be "invited to define
the parameters of the required technical work of the EAI, as well as
provide recommendations around related process and leadership work"
(Source, Draft Proposed Panel Members for Equitable Access Initiative). The
proposed list has placeholders for civil society, the financial sector, and
placeholders for China, France, an "Indian female", Thailand, Vietnam and a
place holder for the Head of the BRICs Development Bank. While Africa,
Europe and North America seem well represented in the proposed list of
experts, it seems Asia and South America appear to be given short shrift -
especially considering the focus of this initiative is to address the
access challenges faced by some low-income countries as they graduate into
middle-income status.

The Global Fund note provide the following background:

1. Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in access to
life-saving health interventions in low-and middle-income countries (MICS),
particularly immunization and treatment for infectious diseases.
2. However, as some low-income countries (LICs) move into middle-income
status, they may lose eligibility for certain global health and development
resources.

3. Although sudden increases in GDP and GNI may indicate corresponding
increases in public health capacity; these economic concepts as a
measurement of wealth can be misleading concerning a government's ability
to provide equitable access to health for its citizens. Other factors,
including the size of the governments health budget, a countries's specific
disease burden, the state of the country's health infrastructure, and
availability and quality of health services, and citizens' real level of
income and ability to procure essential health technologies for themselves,
all can - and do play a role in health outcomes.

4. Equitable access to essential health technologies requires significant
attention, because there are now over 100 middle-income countries (MICs)
accounting for 70% of the world's population, 70% of the world's poor, and
the greatest proportion of the world's disease burden.

5. As the global health landscape changes and countries experience a
constellation of issues supporting their health programs, GAVI, The Global
Fund, UNICEF, UNDP, UNITAID, WHO and the World Bank, are collaborating and
gathering quantifiable data and qualitative analysis- to tackle the issues
at hand.

6. Over the past several moths, we have agreed that as development
Partners, the Equitable Access Initiative (EAI) would form part of our
contribution to the post-2015 development agenda, and better that [sic]
ensure the investments and the gains we have made over the past decade will
be sustained.

7 The work of the EAI should fit within designing a holistic approach to
enable more equitable access to essential health technologies, and the
Expert Panel well be conscious of that.

According to the World Bank's classification (2013), a low income economy
is one with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (World Bank Atlas
Method) of less than $1,045 (Source, World Bank page on Country and Lending
Groups <http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups>). The
World Bank defines a lower-middle income economy as one having a GNI per
capita higher than $1,045 and lower than $4,125. Upper middle income
economies have a GNI per capita higher than $4,125 and lower than $12,746.
The Global Fund led-initiative seeks to address the access challenges faced
by low-income countries who graduate to middle income status, particularly,
those who face the threat of losing eligibility of donor supported programs
for medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and other health technologies. As this
initiative clearly identifies GAVI , the Global Fund, The World Bank, UNDP
, UNICEF and UNITAID as Development Partners, one wonders if the respective
boards and members states of these institutions have given the greenlight
to submit the outcomes of this normative work on country classification as
part of their contributions to the UN's post 2015 development Agenda?



More information about the Ip-health mailing list