The recent announcement “that the Administration’s signature Global Health Initiative (GHI) was being replaced by a new Office of Global Health Diplomacy at State was greeted with withering criticism from many in the global health community,” PSI CEO Karl Hofmann writes in this post in the organization’s “Healthy Lives” blog. But “this change matters less than one might first think,” he continues, writing, “The aim to achieve greater integration of Washington agencies and their individual health appropriations was never as likely nor frankly important as the aim to achieve more integrated health programming at country level.” Hofmann concludes, “Putting more emphasis on making global health integration a programmatic reality at the country level is probably the right way for the Administration to bring GHI principles to life” (7/16).
“In the build-up to the London Summit on Family Planning, there have been a lot of opinions expressed on blogs, in mainstream media coverage, in peer-reviewed journals, and even exchanges on the streets and at the water cooler,” Gary Darmstadt, head of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Family Health Division, writes in this post in the foundation’s “Impatient Optimists” blog. “And it has been great to see the conversations happening, even with the criticisms and resistance that we have sometimes felt from both conservative and liberal sides of the issue while preparing for the Summit,” he continues. He adds, “I look forward to the exciting times to come as the Summit has concluded, commitments have been made, and now we put the conversations that have been building up for the last few months into action to bring contraceptives to 120 million new users in the next eight years” (7/16).
On World Population Day, observed on Wednesday, July 11, the U.K. Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are co-hosting the London Summit on Family Planning. The following are summaries of opinion pieces and blog posts published ahead of the conference.
The London Summit on Family Planning, co-sponsored by the U.K. government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with support from UNFPA and other partners, is scheduled to take place next week. The following blog posts address the summit and the issue of family planning.
Though Indonesia is “widely seen as a development success story — indeed, it is sometimes referred to as one of Asia’s ‘rising powers’ … in the area of maternal health, the successes have been modest and much remains to be done,” Andrew Rosser, associate director of the Indo-Pacific Governance Research Centre at the University of Adelaide, writes in an Inside Indonesia opinion piece. “Indonesia is on track to meet many of these goals,” including those related to poverty, child nutrition and mortality, education, and tuberculosis and malaria, “[b]ut it is well off track when it comes to goals related to maternal health,” he states. The country also is “failing to meet its targets on the use of modern methods of contraception and reducing the ‘unmet need’ for family planning — that is, the proportion of couples who want to limit the number of children they have but do not have access to contraception,” Rosser notes.
Noting “the total clinic-level cost of providing a year’s worth of antiretroviral drugs … ha[s] dropped” in some countries, Charles Kenny, a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America Foundation, discusses “disagreement over the effectiveness of the global AIDS response” in this Bloomberg Businessweek opinion piece. Kenny highlights a debate that took place last week on the sidelines of the XIX International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012) that “focused on the question: should we use resources for antiretrovirals at a cost (including overhead) of perhaps $350 per patient per life year saved if we could use those resources to provide a course of drugs to cure victims of tuberculosis at a cost of $5 to $50 per life year, or of extending childhood immunizations at the cost of $2 to $20 per life year?” He writes, “Simply, millions of people are dying unnecessarily, for lack of $350 a year or less. It may be those who don’t get AIDS treatment, or those that don’t get other treatments because the available money is being used to buy antiretrovirals.” He continues, “If anything could open treasury accounts in the rich world to provide a larger flow of resources to global health, perhaps it is to get policymakers in those countries to think through these gut wrenching decisions that limited funding (and lack of funding flexibility) forces doctors and ministers and activists alike to make every day” (7/27).
Noting “President Barack Obama’s Feed the Future initiative seeks to end hunger through increasing investment in agricultural development, particularly for the vast legion of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa,” Roger Thurow, a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, writes in a post in the ONE blog, “Central to this movement is that Feed the Future and U.S. leadership to end hunger through agricultural development become a cornerstone of American policy no matter who is in the White House or which party controls Congress.” He writes that PEPFAR “was embraced and authorized by Congress in an unusual display of bipartisan support,” and says, “Feed the Future is worthy of similar bipartisan support and unity of purpose. It can stand alongside PEPFAR as an example of what America does in the face of crisis and great need” (7/27).
Highlighting the XIX International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012), which concluded in Washington, D.C., on Friday, this New York Times editorial examines the future of the global AIDS response. “There is no prospect that scientists will any time soon find the ultimate solutions to the AIDS epidemic, namely a vaccine that would prevent infection with the AIDS virus or a ‘cure’ for people already infected with the virus,” the editorial states, adding, “Even so, health care leaders already have many tools that have been shown in rigorous trials to prevent transmission of the virus, making it feasible to talk of controlling the epidemic within the foreseeable future.” The editorial continues, “Instead of waiting for these future possibilities, [NIAID Director Anthony Fauci] and other health leaders are proposing the broad adoption of other available tools to reduce the spread of the virus so as to produce an ‘AIDS-free generation,’ a goal enunciated last year by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The editorial adds, “The only question is whether the nations of the world are willing to put up enough money and make the effort to do it” (7/27).
Some members of Congress “are advocating deep cuts to funding for domestic programs such as [the Ryan White CARE Act] and international programs such as the Global Fund [to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria] and PEPFAR,” but “[w]hat these critics fail to realize is that though we have won a multitude of battles, we are still losing the war in many communities,” Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) writes in a U.S. News & World Report opinion piece. “We must continue to find innovative, targeted solutions in the fight against this dreaded disease,” he continues, adding, “There are many of us in Congress who recognize this important fact, chief among those are my dear friend Rep. Barbara Lee [D-Calif.], whose upcoming ‘Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Act of 2012’ targets at-risk populations both domestically and internationally.” Honda concludes, “From legislative action on the federal level to grassroots efforts in state communities, we need to make targeting these communities a top priority in order to move forward. This requires advocacy, this requires commitment, and most importantly, it requires more investment” (7/27).
Noting successes with the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and PEPFAR, as well as other domestic and international programs, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) writes in a Politico opinion piece, “But this is not enough.” He continues, “The Obama administration has the opportunity to push for policies that can offer developing nations more access to generic ARV therapies,” including supporting intellectual property rules under the Trans-Pacific Partnership “that would help speed up — not impede — generic drug competition in countries like Vietnam.” Waxman adds, “We should also back efforts to give developing countries more flexibility in interpreting the World Trade Organization’s patent rules for medicines,” and the administration “should … promote the Medicines Patent Pool, a bold initiative to bring down prices of HIV medicines by encouraging pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily license their patents and allow generic manufacturers to sell in developing countries.” Waxman concludes that the U.S. should be proud of its leadership on HIV/AIDS, “[b]ut our work is far from done. Supporting reliable access to generic medicines in the developing world is a much-needed step in getting us there” (7/24).