Latest news with #GlobalFund
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
17 hours ago
- Health
- Business Standard
'Your cuts will kill 8 mn more children': Bill Gates warns US government
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has sounded alarm over the United States government's decision to cut funding for global health initiatives. Sharing a post on X, Gates warned that this could lead to the deaths of an additional eight million children by 2040. Citing a Lancet study, he wrote, 'It found that, by 2040, 8 million more children will die before their fifth birthday. To give some context for 8 million: That's how many children live in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio combined.' Gates mentioned: 'When the United States and other governments suddenly cut their aid budgets, I know for a fact that more children will die.' When the United States and other governments suddenly cut their aid budgets, I know for a fact that more children will die. Here's the proof I'm showing Congress. — Bill Gates (@BillGates) June 25, 2025 Global health work spans decades Having spent more than 25 years in the global health space, Gates emphasised how aid has been crucial in saving lives. 'Over the past 25 years — the same span of time I spent leading Microsoft — I have immersed myself in global health... and worked in close partnership with national and local leaders to strengthen the delivery of lifesaving care,' he said. He underscored that aid withdrawals have tangible and tragic consequences: 'Global health aid saves lives. And when that aid is withdrawn — abruptly and without a plan — lives are lost.' Gates added, 'At this point, I know as much about improving health in poor countries as I do about software.' Cuts already impacting health services Gates warned that recent US cuts to global health funding are already affecting critical programs. Efforts to test for tuberculosis, prevent malaria, and distribute essential medicines are slowing down. During recent visits to Nigeria and Ethiopia, he observed how health services are suffering due to funding shortfalls. Despite the bleak outlook, Gates expressed hope. 'It's not too late to change course,' he wrote, urging the US Congress to restore funding for key programmes such as PEPFAR and the Global Fund. Gates slams Musk for USAID shutdown In May this year, Gates harshly criticised Tesla CEO Elon Musk, accusing him of contributing to child deaths in poor countries by supporting budget cuts. 'The picture of the world's richest man killing the world's poorest children is not a pretty one,' Gates told The Financial Times, accusing Musk of acting 'through ignorance'. Musk, the then head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded the closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) earlier this year. He had posted on X: 'USAID is a criminal organisation. Time for it to die.' Massive fallout from USAID's closure The abrupt halt in USAID operations has led to life-saving supplies expiring in storage, according to Gates. He warned that diseases like polio, measles, and HIV could see resurgence, potentially reversing decades of global health progress. With the Gates Foundation's annual budget expected to rise to $10 billion in the coming years, Gates acknowledged that private philanthropy cannot match the scale of government aid. 'I think governments will come back to caring about children surviving,' he said.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Health
- Time of India
Your 'action' will kill 8 million kids: Microsoft founder Bill Gates warns US government
Microsoft founder and former CEO Bill Gates has once again raised concerns over the impact of US government cutting funding for global health. Sharing a post on microblogging platform X (formerly Twitter), he warned that this could result in an additional 8 million child deaths by 2024. Gates cited a Lancet study on the cumulative impact of reductions in American aid. 'It found that, by 2040, 8 million more children will die before their fifth birthday. To give some context for 8 million: That's how many children live in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio combined,' Gates said. In the post, he writes 'When the United States and other governments suddenly cut their aid budgets, I know for a fact that more children will die.' He said he has worked in the global health space for over 25 years and has seen how important aid is in saving lives. 'Over the past 25 years—the same span of time I spent leading Microsoft—I have immersed myself in global health: building knowledge, deepening expertise, and working to save lives from deadly diseases and preventable causes. During that time, I have built teams of world-class scientists and public health experts at the Gates Foundation , studied health systems across continents, and worked in close partnership with national and local leaders to strengthen the delivery of lifesaving care,' he writes. 'Global health aid saves lives. And when that aid is withdrawn—abruptly and without a plan—lives are lost,' Gates warned. 'At this point, I know as much about improving health in poor countries as I do about software,' he further stated. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 月 *만원대 "실비보험" 최적가 비교가입! "가성비 굿 맞춤설계+할인혜택"... 굿리치 보험대리점 (등록번호:제2006038313호) 가입하기 Undo 'It's not too late to change course': Bill Gates Bill Gates said that U.S. cuts to global health aid are already causing problems. He pointed out that important programs like tuberculosis testing and malaria prevention are slowing down, and life-saving medicines are getting delayed. Gates recently visited Nigeria and Ethiopia and said he saw for himself how healthcare services there are being affected by the funding cuts. Still, Gates said there is time to fix the situation. 'It's not too late to change course,' he wrote on X. He urged the U.S. Congress to restore funding for major programs such as PEPFAR (the U.S. plan for AIDS relief) and the Global Fund. How to detect hidden cameras in a hotel room, just with your smartphone AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Japan Today
5 days ago
- Business
- Japan Today
When developing countries band together, lifesaving drugs become cheaper and easier to buy − with trade-offs
Pooling procurement of drugs could increase the availability of essential treatments around the globe. By Lucy Xiaolu Wang and Nahim Bin Zahur Procuring lifesaving drugs is a daunting challenge in many low- and middle-income countries. Essential treatments are often neither available nor affordable in these nations, even decades after the drugs entered the market. Prospective buyers from these countries face a patent thicket, where a single drug may be covered by hundreds of patents. This makes it costly and legally difficult to secure licensing rights for manufacturing. These buyers also face a complex and often fragile supply chain. Many major pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to sell their products in unprofitable markets. Quality assurance adds another layer of complexity, with substandard and counterfeit drugs widespread in many of these countries. Organizations such as the United Nations-backed Medicines Patent Pool have effectively increased the supply of generic versions of patented drugs. But the problems go beyond patents or manufacturing – how medicines are bought are also crucially important. Buyers for low- and middle-income countries are often health ministries and community organizations on tight budgets that have to negotiate with sellers that may have substantial market power and far more experience. We are economists who study how to increase access to drugs across the globe. Our research found that while pooling orders for essential medicines can help drive down costs and ensure a steady supply to low- and middle-income countries, there are trade-offs that require flexibility and early planning to address. Understanding these trade-offs can help countries better prepare for future health emergencies and treat chronic conditions. Pooled procurement reduces drug costs One strategy low-income countries are increasingly adopting to improve treatment access is 'pooled procurement.' That's when multiple buyers coordinate purchases to strengthen their collective bargaining power and reduce prices for essential medicines. For example, pooling can help buyers meet the minimum batch size requirements some suppliers impose that countries purchasing individually may not satisfy. Countries typically rely on four models for pooled drug procurement: -- One method, called decentralized procurement, involves buyers purchasing directly from manufacturers. -- Another method, called international pooled procurement, involves going through international institutions such as the Global Fund's Pooled Procurement Mechanism or the United Nations. -- Countries may also purchase prescription drugs through their own central medical stores, which are government-run or semi-autonomous agencies that procure, store and distribute medicines on behalf of national health systems. This method is called centralized domestic procurement. -- Finally, countries can also go through independent nonprofits, foundations, nongovernmental organizations and private wholesalers. We wanted to understand how different procurement methods affect the cost of and time it takes to deliver drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, because those three infectious diseases account for a large share of deaths and cases worldwide. So we analyzed over 39,000 drug procurement transactions across 106 countries between 2007 and 2017 that were funded by the Global Fund, the largest multilateral funder of HIV/AIDS programs worldwide. We found that pooled procurement through international institutions reduced prices by 13% to 20% compared with directly buying from drug manufacturers. Smaller buyers and those purchasing drugs produced by only a small number of manufacturers saw the greatest savings. In comparison, purchasing through domestic pooling offered less consistent savings, with larger buyers seeing greater price advantages. The Global Fund and the United Nations were especially effective at lowering the prices of older, off-patent drugs. Trade-offs with pooled procurements Cost savings from pooled drug procurement may come with trade-offs. While the Global Fund reduced unexpected delivery delays by 28%, it required buyers to place orders much earlier. This results in longer anticipated procurement lead time between ordering and delivery – an average of 114 days more than that of direct purchases. In contrast, domestic pooled procurement shortened lead times by over a month. Our results suggest a core tension: Pooled procurement improves prices and reliability but can reduce flexibility. Organizations that facilitate pooled procurement tend to prioritize medicines that can be bought at high volume, limiting the availability of other types of drugs. Additionally, the longer lead times may not be suitable for emergency situations. With the spread of COVID-19, several large armed conflicts and tariff wars, governments have become increasingly aware of the fragility of the global supply chain. Some countries, such as Kenya, have sought to reduce their dependence on international pooling since 2005 by investing in domestic procurement. But a shift toward domestic self-sufficiency is a slow and difficult process due to challenges with quality assurance and large-scale manufacturing. It may also weaken international pooled systems, which rely on broad participation to negotiate better terms with suppliers. Interestingly, we found little evidence that international pooled procurement influences pricing for the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a major purchaser of HIV treatments for developing countries. PEPFAR-eligible products do not appear to benefit more from international pooled procurement than noneligible ones. However, domestic procurement institutions were able to secure lower prices for PEPFAR-eligible products. This suggests that the presence of a large donor such as PEPFAR can cut costs, particularly when countries manage procurement internally. USAID cuts and global drug access While international organizations such as the Medicines Patent Pool and the Global Fund can address upstream barriers such as patents and procurement in the global drug supply chain, other institutions are essential for ensuring that medicines actually reach patients. The U.S. Agency for International Development had played a significant role in delivering HIV treatment abroad through PEPFAR. The Trump administration's decision in February 2025 to cut over 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts amounted to a US$60 billion reduction in overall U.S. assistance globally. An estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths are already happening, and millions more will likely die. The World Health Organization warned that eight countries, including Haiti, Kenya, Nigeria and Ukraine, could soon run out of HIV treatments due to these aid cuts. In South Africa, HIV services have already been scaled back, with reports of mass layoffs of health workers and HIV clinic closures. These downstream cracks can undercut the gains from efforts to make procuring drugs more accessible if the drugs can't reach patients. Because HIV, tuberculosis and malaria often share the same treatment infrastructure – including drug procurement and distribution networks, laboratory systems, data collection, health workers and community-based services – disruption in the management of one disease can ripple across the others. Researchers have warned of a broader unraveling of progress across these infectious diseases, describing the fallout as a potential 'bloodbath' in the global HIV response. Research shows that supporting access to treatments around the world doesn't just save lives abroad. It also helps prevent the next global health crisis from reaching America's doorstep. Lucy Xiaolu Wang is Assistant Professor, Department of Resource Economics, UMass Amherst. Nahim Bin Zahur Assistant Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Ontario. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
The Star
20-06-2025
- Health
- The Star
Indonesia mobilises cross-border efforts to combat malaria in Papua
Papua New Guinea accounts for 26.4 percent of all malaria cases in the Asia Pacific. - Antara via The Jakarta Post/ANN JAKARTA: Amid the geographical and social complexities of Papua, new hope emerges through the formation of the Papua Malaria Consortium, a cross-sector strategic alliance born from the commitment of governors and the support of stakeholders to accelerate malaria elimination. "If we want Indonesia to be malaria-free, Papua is the key," said Indonesian Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin during a press conference on Tuesday (June 17), held on the sidelines of the 9th Asia Pacific Leaders' Summit on Malaria Elimination in Bali, which brought together over 250 participants from 23 countries and regions and international organisations. He and Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Ribka Haluk led a meeting with six governors from across Papua to develop a more targeted, cross-sector strategy. Papua, the easternmost region of Indonesia, accounts for over 93 per cent of the country's total malaria cases and has now become the epicentre of Indonesia's fight to eliminate the disease. According to Budi, elimination in Papua is not only a health target but also a step toward achieving social justice and strengthening an inclusive health system. Sarthak Das, chief executive officer of the Asia Pacific Leaders Malaria Alliance, expressed support for Indonesia's move to prioritise Papua in malaria elimination efforts. "Strong local leadership and cross-country collaboration are key to achieving the Asia Pacific region's malaria-free target by 2030," he said. This local commitment is also reinforced by the Bilateral Joint Action Plan signed between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on Monday. The cross-border cooperation framework aims to ensure that malaria control efforts are carried out in an integrated and equitable manner in areas that are geographically and epidemiologically interconnected. Papua New Guinea accounts for 26.4 percent of all malaria cases in the Asia Pacific. Therefore, Das added, Indonesia's ability to gain control in Papua would be a vital signal that similar success is possible in Papua New Guinea. The Global Fund, one of the key funding partners, affirmed its commitment to supporting Indonesia's efforts focused on malaria elimination in Papua. "I acknowledge the significant progress made by Indonesia in its fight against malaria, and the Global Fund is fully committed to supporting its partners in the region to combat and eliminate malaria across the Asia Pacific," said Peter Sands, executive director of the Global Fund. Sands also welcomed the launch of "Indonesia's Call to End Malaria" at the high-level forum, a national initiative to push for comprehensive malaria elimination. Indonesia's efforts go beyond commitment. The government is expanding the distribution of bed nets, strengthening surveillance systems, increasing the number and capacity of local health workers, and implementing community-based approaches that respect local Papuan wisdom, alongside treatment and vaccine development. Although challenges remain, especially in terms of geographical access, climate change, and population mobility, these joint efforts show that malaria elimination is no longer a distant dream. With strong political will, international support, and data-driven strategies, Papua could become an inspiring malaria elimination success story for the region. - Xinhua
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
When developing countries band together, lifesaving drugs become cheaper and easier to buy − with trade-offs
Procuring lifesaving drugs is a daunting challenge in many low- and middle-income countries. Essential treatments are often neither available nor affordable in these nations, even decades after the drugs entered the market. Prospective buyers from these countries face a patent thicket, where a single drug may be covered by hundreds of patents. This makes it costly and legally difficult to secure licensing rights for manufacturing. These buyers also face a complex and often fragile supply chain. Many major pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to sell their products in unprofitable markets. Quality assurance adds another layer of complexity, with substandard and counterfeit drugs widespread in many of these countries. Organizations such as the United Nations-backed Medicines Patent Pool have effectively increased the supply of generic versions of patented drugs. But the problems go beyond patents or manufacturing – how medicines are bought are also crucially important. Buyers for low- and middle-income countries are often health ministries and community organizations on tight budgets that have to negotiate with sellers that may have substantial market power and far more experience. We are economists who study how to increase access to drugs across the globe. Our research found that while pooling orders for essential medicines can help drive down costs and ensure a steady supply to low- and middle-income countries, there are trade-offs that require flexibility and early planning to address. Understanding these trade-offs can help countries better prepare for future health emergencies and treat chronic conditions. One strategy low-income countries are increasingly adopting to improve treatment access is 'pooled procurement.' That's when multiple buyers coordinate purchases to strengthen their collective bargaining power and reduce prices for essential medicines. For example, pooling can help buyers meet the minimum batch size requirements some suppliers impose that countries purchasing individually may not satisfy. Countries typically rely on four models for pooled drug procurement: One method, called decentralized procurement, involves buyers purchasing directly from manufacturers. Another method, called international pooled procurement, involves going through international institutions such as the Global Fund's Pooled Procurement Mechanism or the United Nations. Countries may also purchase prescription drugs through their own central medical stores, which are government-run or semi-autonomous agencies that procure, store and distribute medicines on behalf of national health systems. This method is called centralized domestic procurement. Finally, countries can also go through independent nonprofits, foundations, nongovernmental organizations and private wholesalers. We wanted to understand how different procurement methods affect the cost of and time it takes to deliver drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, because those three infectious diseases account for a large share of deaths and cases worldwide. So we analyzed over 39,000 drug procurement transactions across 106 countries between 2007 and 2017 that were funded by the Global Fund, the largest multilateral funder of HIV/AIDS programs worldwide. We found that pooled procurement through international institutions reduced prices by 13% to 20% compared with directly buying from drug manufacturers. Smaller buyers and those purchasing drugs produced by only a small number of manufacturers saw the greatest savings. In comparison, purchasing through domestic pooling offered less consistent savings, with larger buyers seeing greater price advantages. The Global Fund and the United Nations were especially effective at lowering the prices of older, off-patent drugs. Cost savings from pooled drug procurement may come with trade-offs. While the Global Fund reduced unexpected delivery delays by 28%, it required buyers to place orders much earlier. This results in longer anticipated procurement lead time between ordering and delivery – an average of 114 days more than that of direct purchases. In contrast, domestic pooled procurement shortened lead times by over a month. Our results suggest a core tension: Pooled procurement improves prices and reliability but can reduce flexibility. Organizations that facilitate pooled procurement tend to prioritize medicines that can be bought at high volume, limiting the availability of other types of drugs. Additionally, the longer lead times may not be suitable for emergency situations. With the spread of COVID-19, several large armed conflicts and tariff wars, governments have become increasingly aware of the fragility of the global supply chain. Some countries, such as Kenya, have sought to reduce their dependence on international pooling since 2005 by investing in domestic procurement. But a shift toward domestic self-sufficiency is a slow and difficult process due to challenges with quality assurance and large-scale manufacturing. It may also weaken international pooled systems, which rely on broad participation to negotiate better terms with suppliers. Interestingly, we found little evidence that international pooled procurement influences pricing for the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a major purchaser of HIV treatments for developing countries. PEPFAR-eligible products do not appear to benefit more from international pooled procurement than noneligible ones. However, domestic procurement institutions were able to secure lower prices for PEPFAR-eligible products. This suggests that the presence of a large donor such as PEPFAR can cut costs, particularly when countries manage procurement internally. While international organizations such as the Medicines Patent Pool and the Global Fund can address upstream barriers such as patents and procurement in the global drug supply chain, other institutions are essential for ensuring that medicines actually reach patients. The U.S. Agency for International Development had played a significant role in delivering HIV treatment abroad through PEPFAR. The Trump administration's decision in February 2025 to cut over 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts amounted to a US$60 billion reduction in overall U.S. assistance globally. An estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths are already happening, and millions more will likely die. The World Health Organization warned that eight countries, including Haiti, Kenya, Nigeria and Ukraine, could soon run out of HIV treatments due to these aid cuts. In South Africa, HIV services have already been scaled back, with reports of mass layoffs of health workers and HIV clinic closures. These downstream cracks can undercut the gains from efforts to make procuring drugs more accessible if the drugs can't reach patients. Because HIV, tuberculosis and malaria often share the same treatment infrastructure – including drug procurement and distribution networks, laboratory systems, data collection, health workers and community-based services – disruption in the management of one disease can ripple across the others. Researchers have warned of a broader unraveling of progress across these infectious diseases, describing the fallout as a potential 'bloodbath' in the global HIV response. Research shows that supporting access to treatments around the world doesn't just save lives abroad. It also helps prevent the next global health crisis from reaching America's doorstep. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Lucy Xiaolu Wang, UMass Amherst and Nahim Bin Zahur, Queen's University, Ontario Read more: Pharma's expensive gaming of the drug patent system is successfully countered by the Medicines Patent Pool, which increases global access and rewards innovation Cutting HIV aid means undercutting US foreign and economic interests − Nigeria shows the human costs Grassroots AIDS activists fought for and won affordable HIV treatments around the world – but PEPFAR didn't change governments and pharma The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
