RFK Jr Is Playing With Babies' Lives
The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, designed in cooperation between the US and UK governments, as well as philanthropic organisations - particularly Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation - was set up in 2000. Its mandate has been to increase access to vaccines for children whose families cannot afford them, primarily in the Global South. GAVI could have done more, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, but even so it is fair to describe it as one of the few great success stories for international collaboration in the past few decades.
It's worth taking a moment to examine exactly how effective it has been at saving lives through its sustained focus on routine childhood vaccinations. One study published in the British Medical Journal calculated that its support for immunisation programs across the world had reduced infant mortality rates by over 9% and under-fives by 12%.
During the pandemic, GAVI helped set up and administer the COVAX system for vaccine distribution to poorer countries. This took a while to get started, but eventually delivered two billion doses of various Covid-19 shots, saving hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of lives. Initially, the Global South saw the developed world hog far more doses than they needed - Canada, a country of 40 million, had reserved 154 million doses by December of 2020 - while most other countries had simply no way to access any shots at all. GAVI, through COVAX, played a central role in addressing this shocking disparity.
Kennedy's decision to end support to one of America's few remaining positive interventions in the Global South is both immoral and dangerous. It will cause resentment about inequities in worldwide healthcare access to spread and further damage US standing abroad when compared to countries like China. Kennedy's deference to conspiracy theories and nativism will cost children their lives. It may even wind up being worse than the decision to stop funding USAID programs, which has already led to chaos in the some of the poorest parts of the world. (A study published in The Lancet this week predicted those cuts could result in more than 14 million extra deaths globally by 2030.)
But it will hurt the US as well. Not just because Americans cannot insulate themselves completely from an unhealthy world - the pandemic taught us that. But also because GAVI was designed around the principles of the market, and respect for intellectual property rights, institutions that serve US companies and consumers most of all.
Critics argue that it is far too respectful of property rights and the profit motive. The charity Medecins Sans Frontières, for example, has complained that GAVI pays too much to the rights-holders and developers of vaccines, instead of to generics manufacturers, and that means that it costs more to immunise each child than it needs to. (Still, MSF acknowledges that half of the vaccinations it delivers every year are bought with GAVI money, and responded to Kennedy's withdrawal of funding by saying that now, "countless children will die from vaccine-preventable diseases.")
The fact is that if GAVI goes, then so will many countries' incentives to respect intellectual property rights in the healthcare sector. The last thing that US companies - not just in pharmaceuticals, but across the board - need is for the future centers of economic growth in the Global South to take a pick-and-choose approach to paying rights holders.
And all of us will be hurt if new and innovative medicines aren't developed because the global norms around rights and payments change. If Kennedy is allowed to follow his anti-science instincts then the US will be left unhealthier, less respected and poorer - and a million children in the rest of the world will never live to see adulthood.
(Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of 'Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka CM's remarks on Covid vaccines 'factually incorrect' says Biocon chief Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, Siddaramaiah hits back
Biocon founder Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw on Thursday (July 3, 2025) opposed Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's remarks linking Covid-19 vaccines with a spate of heart attack deaths in the state's Hassan district, saying such claims are 'factually incorrect' and 'misleading'. Siddaramaiah had suggested that the recent heart attack deaths in Hassan district may be linked to the vaccination drive. He had also claimed the vaccines were 'hastily' approved. COVID-19 vaccines developed in India were approved under the Emergency Use Authorisation framework, following rigorous protocols aligned with global standards for safety and efficacy. To suggest that these vaccines were 'hastily' approved is factually incorrect and contributes to… — Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw (@kiranshaw) July 3, 2025 In a social media post, Shaw said 'Covid-19 vaccines developed in India were approved under the Emergency Use Authorisation framework, following rigorous protocols aligned with global standards for safety and efficacy. To suggest that these vaccines were 'hastily' approved is factually incorrect and contributes to public misinformation.' "These vaccines have saved millions of lives and, like all vaccines, may cause side effects in a very small number of individuals. It is important to acknowledge the science and data-driven processes behind their development, rather than engage in retrospective blame," Shaw, Executive Chairperson of the pharma company, said. Not misinformation, but governance rooted in empathy Responding to Shaw, in a post on X, Siddaramaiah said that as chief minister, 'I have a duty to respond to the genuine concerns of people who have lost loved ones unexpectedly. When parents lose their young children or families lose breadwinners without warning, seeking clarity is not misinformation; it is an act of governance rooted in empathy.' Pointing out that several studies and even admissions by manufacturers have acknowledged rare but serious adverse events, he said 'Scientific caution is not anti-science. Many peer-reviewed studies (such as Nature, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology) have discussed myocarditis and cardiac arrest risk, particularly among young adults post-vaccination, he said. Publicly funded stakeholders must acknowledge both the benefits and the potential risks without fear or favour.' "When I said 'hastily', it reflects the unprecedented speed of emergency rollouts globally without complete long-term data, acknowledged even by WHO and global regulatory agencies, who termed it a 'calculated risk' during a pandemic. Haste is not a sin when saving lives, but acknowledging potential unintended consequences is wisdom. Seeking answers is not retrospective blame. It is the duty of a government that values every life," the CM said. As Chief Minister, I have a duty to respond to the genuine concerns of people who have lost loved ones unexpectedly. When parents lose their young children or families lose breadwinners without warning, seeking clarity is not misinformation; it is an act of governance rooted in… — Siddaramaiah (@siddaramaiah) July 3, 2025 Replying to his post again, Ms. Shaw said that while she concurs with the CM about asking questions and seeking answers in science, she clarified that her comments were related to whether Covid vaccines were approved in haste. 'My response was that due process was followed as prescribed by WHO for safety n efficacy for EUA. Losing lives in a sudden manner is always tragic n I am glad an investigation is being conducted in Hassan District (sic),' she said. CM's statement The Chief Minister had said on July 1 that over 20 people had died of heart attack in Hassan district in the past month alone, and that the state government was taking the matter seriously. He announced the formation of an expert committee led by Dr. Ravindranath, Director of Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, to investigate the deaths. The committee has been instructed to submit its report within ten days. The CM said a similar directive had been issued in February to study sudden deaths among young people across the state and whether Covid-19 vaccines could have had any adverse effects. "It cannot be denied that the hasty approval and distribution of the covid vaccine to the public could also be a reason for these deaths, as several studies worldwide have recently indicated that covid vaccines could be a cause for the increasing number of heart attacks," Siddaramaiah had said. Union Health Ministry's clarification On Wednesday (July 2), the Union Health Ministry had dismissed the CM's statement, saying extensive studies by ICMR and AIIMS have conclusively established no linkages between coronavirus vaccines and sudden deaths. Studies by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) affirm that Covid-19 vaccines in India are safe and effective, with extremely rare instances of serious side effects, it said. Sudden cardiac deaths can result from a wide range of factors, including genetics, lifestyle, pre-existing conditions, and post-covid complications, the ministry had said in a statement.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Rural hospitals in US brace for financial hits, closure under Trump's $1 trillion Medicaid cut
OMAHA: Tyler Sherman, a nurse at a rural Nebraska hospital, is used to the area's aging farmers delaying care until they end up in his emergency room. Now, with Congress planning around $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years, he fears those farmers and the more than 3,000 residents of Webster County could lose not just the ER, but also the clinic and nursing home tied to the hospital. 'Our budget is pretty heavily reliant on the Medicaid reimbursement, so if we do see a cut of that, it'll be difficult to keep the doors open,' said Sherman, who works at Webster County Community Hospital in the small Nebraska town of Red Cloud just north of the Kansas border. If those facilities close, many locals would see their five-minute trip to Webster County hospital turn into a nearly hour-long ride to the nearest hospital offering the same services. 'That's a long way for an emergency,' Sherman said. 'Some won't make it.' Struggling hospitals will be hit hardest States and rural health advocacy groups warn that cutting Medicaid — a program serving millions of low-income and disabled Americans — would hit already fragile rural hospitals hard and could force hundreds to close, stranding some people in remote areas without nearby emergency care. More than 300 hospitals could be at risk for closure under the Republican bill, according to an analysis by the Cecil G. Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which tracks rural hospital closures. Even as Congress haggled over the controversial bill, a health clinic in the southwest Nebraska town of Curtis announced Wednesday it will close in the coming months, in part blaming the anticipated Medicaid cuts. Bruce Shay, of Pomfret, Connecticut, fears he and his wife could be among those left in the lurch. At 70, they're both in good health, he said. But that likely means that if either needs to go to a hospital, 'it's going to be an emergency.' Day Kimball Hospital is nearby in Putnam, but it has faced recent financial challenges. Day Kimball's CEO R. Kyle Kramer acknowledged that a Senate bill passed Tuesday — estimated to cut federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by $155 billion over 10 years — would further hurt his rural hospital's bottom line. Roughly 30% of Day Kimball's current patients receive Medicaid benefits, a figure that's even higher for specific, critical services like obstetrics and behavioral health. 'An emergency means I'm 45 minutes to an hour away from the nearest hospital, and that's a problem," Shay said. And he and his wife wouldn't be the only ones having to make that trip. 'You've got, I'm sure, thousands of people who rely on Day Kimball Hospital. If it closed, thousands of people would have to go to another hospital,' he said. 'That's a huge load to suddenly impose on a hospital system that's probably already stretched thin.' $50 billion fund for rural hospitals isn't enough Rural hospitals have long operated on the financial edge, especially in recent years as Medicaid payments have continuously fallen below the actual cost to provide health care. More than 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where Medicaid covers 1 in 4 adults, according to the nonprofit KFF, which studies health care issues. US President Donald Trump's $4.5 trillion tax breaks and spending cuts bill, which passed Thursday, would worsen rural hospitals' struggles by cutting a key federal program that helps states fund Medicaid payments to health care providers. To help offset the lost tax revenue, the package includes $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs — cuts they insist only root out fraud and waste in the system. But public outcry over Medicaid cuts led Republicans to include a provision that will provide $10 billion annually to buttress rural hospitals over the next five years, or $50 billion in total. Many rural hospital advocates are wary that it won't be enough to cover the shortfall. Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer with the National Rural Health Association, said rural hospitals already struggle to break even, citing a recent American Hospital Association report that found that hospitals in 2023 got nearly $28 billion less from Medicaid than the actual cost of treating Medicaid patients. 'We see rural hospitals throughout the country really operating on either negative or very small operating margins," Cochran-McClain said. "Meaning that any amount of cut to a payer — especially a payer like Medicaid that makes up a significant portion of rural provider funding — is going to be consequential to the rural hospitals' ability to provide certain services or maybe even keep their doors open at the end of the day.' Kentucky is expected to be hit especially hard A KFF report shows 36 states losing $1 billion or more over 10 years in Medicaid funding for rural areas under the Republican bill, even with the $50 billion rural fund. No state stands to lose more than Kentucky. The report estimates the Bluegrass State would lose a whopping $12.3 billion — nearly $5 billion more than the next state on the list. That's because the bill ends Kentucky's unique Medicaid reimbursement system and reduces it to Medicare reimbursement levels. Kentucky currently has one of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the country. It also has one of the highest poverty rates, leading to a third of its population being covered by Medicaid. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a two-term Democrat widely seen as a potential candidate for president in 2028, said the bill would close 35 hospitals in his state and pull health care coverage for 200,000 residents. 'Half of Kentucky's kids are covered under Medicaid. They lose their coverage and you are scrambling over that next prescription,' Beshear said during an appearance on MSNBC. 'This is going to impact the life of every single American negatively. It is going to hammer our economy."
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Healthcare groups blast passing of Trump's tax bill, warn it will harm millions
Healthcare groups slammed the passage of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax-cut and spending bill on Thursday, warning that its sweeping healthcare provisions would inflict widespread harm on millions of Americans. The bill, when enacted, will overhaul the government's Medicaid healthcare program that covers around 71 million low-income Americans, introducing changes including mandatory work requirements that are expected to leave nearly 12 million people uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office . Republicans have said the legislation will lower taxes for Americans across the income spectrum and spur economic growth. According to the CBO, the bill would lower tax revenue by $4.5 trillion over 10 years and cut spending by $1.1 trillion. Much of those spending cuts come from Medicaid. Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, an influential U.S. doctors' group, warned that the Medicaid cuts would limit access to care by leaving millions without health insurance and make it harder for them to see doctors. "It will make it more likely that acute, treatable illnesses will turn into life-threatening or costly chronic conditions. That is disappointing, maddening, and unacceptable," he said. The Alliance of Community Health Plans, which represents local, nonprofit health plans, also rebuked the bill's passage, saying it would drive up consumer costs while slashing federal health spending to historic levels. The group pledged to work with policymakers to minimize disruption for communities. Greg Kelley, president of the Service Employees International Union's healthcare branch, representing Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas, called the bill a "moral failure" that threatened healthcare access, jobs, and the stability of the healthcare system. Craig Garthwaite, director of the healthcare program at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, said their research showed such cuts would hurt patient health. He said expanding Medicaid had saved lives and cutting it back was likely to have the opposite impact. Ge Bai, a Johns Hopkins health policy professor and adviser to the conservative Paragon Health Institute, said she expected the private market would step in as able-bodied adults lose Medicaid and subsidies.
