[Ip-health] scidev.net: Narrow funding base "puts WHO programme at risk'

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Tue Feb 11 06:09:46 PST 2014


Narrow funding base "puts WHO programme at risk'

The future of a WHO programme that ensures the quality of
 for numerous global health NGOs and UN agencies is
more donors start funding
<http://www.scidev.net/global/enterprise/funding/> it,
health experts have warned.

The Prequalification of Medicines Programme (PQP) relies on just two donors
-- the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and global health organisation
UNITAID -- for roughly 90 per cent of its funding.

This situation could spell the programme's demise should either donor end
its funding, according to an article published in the *Journal of Public
Health Policy* last month (16 January).

"The importance of the work of PQP, coupled with the fact that its funding
base is not solid enough, potentially creates a very risky situation," says
Ellen 't Hoen, the paper's lead author and a consultant on medicines law
and policy.

Launched in 2001, the programme was initially developed to address the lack
of affordable antiretroviral (ARV) drugs for people infected with
developing countries.

In 2000, only one HIV patient in a thousand had access to ARVs in Africa,
according to statistics cited in the paper.

"The situation was dire," says Joep van Oosterhout, who is medical and
research director for the NGO Dignitas International and who has worked in
Malawi since 2001. "A few patients were able to start treatment, but,
generally, could not afford to continue. Even though they were subsidised
by the government, the drugs were still far too expensive for the vast
majority of people."

The WHO set up PQP to verify the quality of generic ARVs that Indian drug
firms had recently brought onto the market. By ensuring drug reliability,
the programme enabled bodies such as the Global Fund to make cheap ARVs
widely accessible through grants to developing countries.

PQP saved public drug procurement agencies, such as the Global Fund and
national governments, US$170 for every dollar that donors put into the
programme as a result of cheaper generic drugs of known quality being
available, according to 2009 statistics cited in the paper.

Charles Clift, a senior consulting fellow at UK policy institute Chatham
House, says: "[PQP] was certainly a very important factor in bringing down
the price of some medicines and promoting their availability in a wide
range of developing countries, which otherwise probably wouldn't have

Over three quarters of the eight million people being treated for HIV in
2012 were receiving ARVs that had been prequalified by PQP, according to
the paper.

Clift agrees that relying on two donors for the bulk of funding leaves PQP
in a precarious position.

"There are risks in any [funding] system, but being reliant on two donors
means that there would be immediate consequences if either change their
mind about investing," he says. "It would be serious if the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation withdrew funding, but if UNITAID withdrew funding, that
would be the end of it."

UNITAID currently contributes US$11 million of PQP's annual US$15 million

Without the programme, ineffective drugs could find their way onto markets
that have little regulatory oversight, says 't Hoen.

"If low-quality drugs get into the system, there is a risk of the
development of drug resistance as well as people just not receiving the
amount of active ingredients needed," she says.

A broader donor base is also needed to expand PQP's mandate to cover new
drugs used to treat cancer and hepatitis C, she adds. These are not
priorities for the programme's current donors, but are growing public
health concerns in many developing countries, according to 't Hoen.

While a scheme to help cover some of PQP's costs by charging drug
manufacturers a fee was recently implemented, 't Hoen believes this will
eventually lead to higher drug prices. She suggests governments and others
pick up the tab instead.

"If all the agencies, organisations and governments that spend money on the
procurement of these drugs -- and that benefit hugely from the programme --
would split the bill [for PQP] among themselves, they would all end up with
a very small charge," she says.

More information about the Ip-health mailing list