The 77th World Health Assembly is underway in Geneva.

GENEVA — As the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) opened on Monday, global leaders pressed World Health Organization (WHO) member states to conclude a pandemic agreement, despite failing to meet the original deadline for reaching a consensus.

The WHA, a week-long gathering that sets the agenda for the WHO, was initially expected to mark the completion of both the pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which govern global disease outbreaks. However, negotiations on both fronts remain unfinished, although talks on the IHR are reportedly nearing a conclusion.

On Tuesday, the assembly will deliberate on the path forward for these crucial discussions, with potential options including extending the talks by days (in the case of the IHR), months (until the end of the year), or even years (possibly until the 2025 or 2026 WHA).

In a video message, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on member states to “bring [the pandemic agreement] to fruition and to support the amendments to the International Health Regulations, boosting our ability to respond to emergencies.”

Guterres described the pandemic agreement as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure the global health system can respond more quickly and equitably when the next pandemic strikes.”

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to “concluding a pandemic agreement that makes a real difference on the ground.”

WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised the negotiators, some of whom worked until 4am, and expressed optimism that an agreement on responding to future pandemics could still be achieved, emphasizing that the process now lies in the hands of the WHA.

“Of course, we all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and cross the finish line,” said Tedros. “But I remain confident that you still will because, where there is a will there is a way… now it is for this World Health Assembly to decide what that way is.“

Preventing emergencies

The WHA’s theme, ‘health for all, all for health,’ stands in stark contrast to the reality on the ground. Tedros noted that “at least 4.5 billion people, more than half of the world’s population, are not fully covered by essential services, and 2 billion people face financial hardship due to out-of-pocket health spending.”

“Outbreaks, disasters, conflicts, and climate change are all causing death and disability, hunger, and psychological distress,” he added.”Outbreaks, disasters, conflicts, and climate change are all causing death and disability, hunger, and psychological distress.”

Tedros said that the WHO responded to 65 graded emergencies last year, including outbreaks of cholera, dengue, diphtheria, hepatitis E, Marburg, measles and mpox. He also highlighted the establishment of the Pandemic Fund, which has already disbursed $338 million to 37 countries, and the launch of the International Pathogen Surveillance Network and WHO BioHub System.

“While our work responding to emergencies often makes the headlines, our work supporting countries to prevent and prepare for emergencies is less visible but equally important,” said Tedros.

He also drew attention to the increasing attacks on health facilities, stating that in 2023, the WHO verified “1,510 attacks on health care in 19 countries, with 749 deaths and more than 1,200 injuries.” He called for immediate ceasefires in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine.

Secretary-General Guterres, deeply troubled by the unrelenting attacks on health facilities in conflict zones worldwide, described the situation as “unprecedented” and “beyond anything” he had seen throughout his tenure as the UN’s top official.

Image Credits: WHO.

Dr Tedros and Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley

GENEVA – The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking $7-billion in flexible funding for its four-year programme of action (2025-2028), and will hold an investment conference towards the end of the year – but the launch of this quest was celebrated at an event at its Geneva headquarters on Sunday evening.

The four-year programme will cost $11.1-billion to implement and little over a third – $4-billion – will come from WHO member states’ membership fees, referred to as “assessed contributions”, said WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

“Let me put that into context for you,” added Tedros. “Last year, the world spent $717-billion on cigarettes.

“It’s about ensuring WHO is fully funded and improving the quality of the funding we receive. Much of the funding we receive is unpredictable, reactive, and tightly defined,” he added.

The WHO currently manages over 3,000 granted for earmarked projects, which did not allow for quick responses in times of crisis, he explained. In addition, because so much of its income was tied to specific projects, many WHO staff were on 60-day contracts.

“When the funding we get is flexible, then we will have the opportunity to prioritise based on the countries’ situation,” he said, adding that it would also boost morale.

“A lot of people invest their time – including directors – managing grants, mobilising resources  instead of focusing on the programmes.”

The launch, on the eve of the 77th World Health Assembly, “marks the start of a year-long series of engagements and events, co-hosted by countries, where member states and other donors will be invited to contribute funds to WHO’s strategy for 2025 through 2028 and show high-level political commitment to WHO and global health,” the WHO noted.

The investment round will culminate in November with a major pledging event to be hosted by Brazil around the G20 Leaders’ Summit.

“It’s about ensuring WHO is fully funded and improving the quality of the funding we receive. Much of the funding we receive is unpredictable, reactive, and tightly defined,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “The Investment Round aims to change that, by generating funding that is more flexible, predictable, and resilient.”

Sea change

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley told the event that there needs to be “a sea change in the global governance architecture of our international financial institutions”.

“There can be no first class and second class citizens of the world, particularly as it relates to access to pharmaceuticals, and access to medical care,” she added.

“Unless we begin to internalise that the balance sheets of most multinational corporations, in fact, dwarf more than half of the world’s states, we will not be able to get to the point where we need to get,” said Mottley, who received a Global Health Leaders Award for lifetime achievement from Tedros.

“And if we accept that public funds are getting more and more difficult to find, then it means that we can only rely on states to be at the core of funding the global public goods.”

“There can be no first class and second class citizens of the world, particularly as it relates to access to pharmaceuticals, and access to medical care. If we get that right, then the missing part of the equation can be found and what is the missing part of the equation? It is political will,” concluded Mottley.

Norwegian Health Minister Jan Christian Vestre

“Global problems need global solutions, and no other organisation has turned out to be in a better position to provide us a chance to come to global solutions,” Brazil’s Minister of Health Nísia Trindade said in a video address. “We will use the convening power of G20 to help mobilise efforts to make the Investment Round a success.”

Qatar Minister of Health Dr Hanan Mohamed Al Kuwari announced a contribution of $4 million in fully flexible funds to the Investment Round, and an intention to contribute further.

“Health care is a fundamental human right and we must continue to invest in the World Health Organization to safeguard our health. Unity is the key to our success,” Al Kuwari said.

France, Germany, and Norway announced that they would serve as co-hosts for the Investment Round.

Norwegian Health Minister Jan Christian Vestre said that his country was proud to co-host the investment round “which will be an important step in securing the organisation a more sustainable financing”. 

However, he said that “more steps are needed, including an increase in assessed contributions”. Two years’ ago, the WHA resolved that 50% of the WHO’s funds should come from by 2030.

“The increase in assessed contributions will not only make WHO more efficient, but also more democratic, as the organisation will be in a better position to follow the priorities that are decided in the assembly instead of following donor earmarked financing,” said Vestre.

Ashley Bloomfield, co-chair of the Working Group on amendments to the International Health Regulations and Precious Matsoso, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for a pandemic accord, speaking on the eve of the World Health Assembly.

Although a draft pandemic agreement may take weeks or months longer to conclude, there are moves underfoot to try to quickly wrap up negotiations and get final member state sign-off on amendments to the 2005-era WHO International Health Regulations  (IHR) at the this week’s World Health Assembly (WHA), said the co-chair of the working group on amendments to the IHR, Ashley Bloomfield, of New Zealand.

He was speaking at the Geneva Graduate Institute‘s Global Health Center, on the eve of the opening of the WHA, which will grapple with an agenda that is perhaps one of the most complex, divisive and also potentially impactful, in the Organization’s 75 year history.

The week-long Assembly will be taking up resolutions and decisions dealing with a new four-year strategy to WHO; it’s new funding appeal to raise some $7 billion more over that period in voluntary funds from donors; the humanitarian crises related to wars in Ukraine and Gaza; as well as a host of other vital health themes – from a new resolution on climate and health to the status of efforts to eliminate malaria, tackle chronic disease as well as head off a wave of drug resistant pathogens and disease, to name just a few.

Amidst all of that, while two-years of negotiations on a proposed new pandemic agreement ended Friday without final agreement on a draft, the committee negotiating parallel amendments to the IHR, the pre-existing set of WHO emergency rules approved in 2005, have moved closer to the end goal with an agreement in principle over its contents.

And out of 34 articles in the IHR amendments, 17 are fully approved, while another 17 remain to be finalised, Bloomfield said.  As a result, he said the group would be sharing the document-in-progress with the assembly, but asking for the go-ahead to continue negotiations during the WHA.

“We will put forward a draft resolution asking the Assembly to continue the work this week, and hoping that it will be adopted by the Assembly before the week is over,” he said.

“I think there is a really strong intent by us to seize the moment,” he added, noting that language advancing more “equity” between countries during health emergencies are among the “significant inclusions” to the draft  IHR amendments – although he did not elaborate.

More predictable financing for disease threats

Many nations imposed strict border controls during the pandemic, contrary to the International Health Regulations call to ensure free movement of people and goods.

The IHR equity achievements include stronger commitments by high-income states, such as the European Union, to support more predictable and sustainable financing for all countries in outbreak prevention, preparedness, other sources told Health Policy Watch.

That, in turn, should help support more robust surveillance of pathogens which pose outbreak, emergency and ultimately pandemic risks, particularly in low- and middle-income countries that lack the tools and resources to track and identify them quickly.

Other elements of the amendments on which the working group is close to an agreement, include an official definition for a “pandemic.” This would be a trigger for WHO to declare a higher level of emergency beyond the current designation of a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC).

That would activate the more far-reaching provisions of a future- pandemic accord, should that new legal instrument be finally approved and ratified by countries. During the COVID pandemic, no actual “pandemic” designation existed and so when WHO declared that the world was facing a pandemic, on 11 March 2020, moving beyond language for the PHEIC that had been declared in late January, it was more of a symbolic step, rather than one with any legal implications.

Another element of the IHR amendments, also close to conclusion, would involve creation of a mechanism for indpendent monitoring of how countries implement the IHR’s key provisions – to strengthen what one negotiator called “the collective oversight” of the readiness process.

WHO’s new global health strategy and the $14 Billion ‘Ask’

On left: Bjorn Kummel, German Ministry of Health, makes the case for a new approach to WHO funding.

Another key feature of this year’s WHA will be the launch of a first-ever WHO “Investment Round,” which seeks to raise an additional $7.1 billion in voluntary contributions from member states for the four-year, 2025-2028 period, on top of regular asssessed contributions, which are expected to amount to $4 billion.

“The 7.1 billion seeks to expand the envelope to cover what is not covered by the assesssed contributions of WHO,” said senior WHO advisory Bruce Aylward.

While WHO has always sought and received voluntary contributions from member states and philanthropies, the idea is to systemize the giving, allowing the organization to more flexibly allocate funds to agreed-upon priorities and enjoy more “predictability” in its funding cycles.

“The idea is to really lobby at the highest levels, presidents and prime ministers for funding for WHO,” said Bjorn Kummel, a senior official in Germany’s Ministry of Health, who led moves last year to increase assessed member state funding to WHO.  “Most of the funding [now] comes in highly earmarked,” he noted.  Additionally, significant organizational resources from various departments, are expended courting to donors individually and reporting to them. 

“The other challenge is predicability,” Kummel added.  “You may notice that there are many in WHO on short-term contracts, and this is due to the way that we are funding WHO through unpredicatable finances.”

Additionally, he noted, the aim is to broaden the base of voluntary giving to include more countries that have moved up the ladder of economic development and could now shoulder a share of the burden.

“It’s been the same 18 key donors  [for voluntary contributions] over the past 50 years,” Kummer said.  “That can’t continue.”

Geopolitical and cultural divides deeper than ever

Against all of the complexity, the WHA convenes in a period where geopolitical and cultural divides are deeper than ever.

Two residents stand in the ruins of homes in Borodianka in the Kyiv region.

Two more resolutions on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine following Russia’s 2022 invasion may come before the assembly, said Gian Luca Burci, WHO’s former chief legal counsel and now a senior faculty member at the Geneva Graduate Institute.  That follows divisive debates in 2022 and 2023 over previous WHA resolutions, initiated by the European Union and its allies, on the Ukraine situation.

And the health and humanitarian emergency in Gaza, triggered by Israel’s war against Hamas, following the bloody 7 October 2023 Hamas incursion into Israel, will be the focus of a dedicated resolution that member states will debate alongside a perennial resolution and debate on the health conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the West Bank.

That latter resolution, however, has taken on added significance since the war began, insofar as West Bank Palestinians also have faced tough Israeli military lockdowns and curtailment on routine movements, including to obtain health care.

In addition, there may be moves afoot to enhance Palestine’s status at the WHA, where it is now merely an observer, like the Vatican:  “There may be an initiative to adopt a resolution giving Palestine … rights of member states,” Burci said, referring to a similar move recently taken by the UN General Assembly.

The UN GA resolution greatly expanded Palestine’s rights before the body, although it stopped short of giving it the right to vote, or allowing it to posit its candidacy for the UN Security Council, rights that only the UN Security Council may bestow.   Finally, he said that there could be moves afoot to curtail Israel’s eligibility to serve on WHO’s governing body, the 34-member Executive Board, although that would have little immediate meaning as Israel recently completed a three-year EB term.

Gender inclusion and sexual and reproductive health rights

Another flashpoint that has been the focus of gathering stormclouds is the issue of gender inclusion and sexual and reproductive health rights.

Standard language about those issues was traditionally a part of most resolutions and decisions on topics ranging from HIV/AIDs to maternal and child health, as well as environmental health. But increasingly an alliance of conservative countries have sought to have such references watered down or removed, not only from WHA-approved resolutions but even from WHO Secretariat reports.

Pascale Allotey
Pascale Allotey

“There’s really a much more fundamental question that is happening within the lines of gender equality as a shared value,” said Pascale Allotey, a Ghanaian public health researcher who is now director of WHO’s progamme on Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) and its joint programme on Human Reproductive Health (HRP).

“We hear a lot now of the use of the term ‘gender ideology’  – this idea that it’s just about imposed concepts,” she said. “But this agenda isn’t about imposed concepts or about concepts at all. It’s really just a …framework for understanding the realities of people’s lives – the ways in which your lack of power and agency restricts people’s capacities and opportunities in unjust ways.” 

Image Credits: The National Guard/Flickr, Matteo Minasi/ UNOCHA.

Most air pollution-related deaths are due to cardiovascular diseases, according to the latest report by the World Heart Federation.

Almost 70% of the 4.2 million deaths attributed to ambient (outdoor) air pollution in 2019 were caused by cardiovascular diseases, notably ischaemic heart disease (1.9 million deaths) and stroke (900,000 deaths), according to a new report by the World Heart Federation (WHF).

The report highlights the outsized impacts air pollution is having on the worldwide epidemic of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs).

Meanwhile, air pollution has become the leading risk factor for global disease burden, overcoming even hypertension, according to a recently published Lancet study, in a ranking of 88 environmental and health risk factors across 204 countries and territories. The analysis was a part of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2021, conducted by the Seattle-based Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME).

The GBD study is published once every two years but publication of the 2021 data was delayed until now, due to the pandemic. It considered risk factors ranging from environmental and occupational hazards, such as air pollution, to behavioural factors such as tobacco use, physical inactivity, unsafe sex and poor nutrition.

Air pollution was also one of the leading risk factors in the last GBD study published in 2020, but as the disease burden was calculated separately for ambient and household pollution, which have overlapping mortality, it did not rank as the highest.

But in the 2021 Lancet report, malnutrition risk factors, largely related to low birth weight, child growth failure and suboptimal breastfeeding were ranked separately. If those were ranked together, then malnutrition [primarily neonatal, newborn and early childhood] becomes the Number 1 risk, with air pollution, second and hypertension third, said Michael Brauer, lead author of the study for the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), in a comment to Health Policy Watch.

Air pollution ranks as the first health risk factor among 88 considered in the new IHME Global Burden of Disease study, published by IHME in The Lancet.

Cardiovascular – not lung disease – associated with the lion’s share of air pollution-related deaths

However, among the diseases most closely associated with ambient (outdoor) air pollution-related exposures, cardiovascular disease is responsible for the lion’s share according to the new WHF report. And that is a striking new finding.

“Most people, when they think of air pollution they think of someone coughing, they think of lung conditions like asthma and pulmonary disease. But actually, it is the cardiovascular conditions which are probably the most concerning,” Dr Mark Miller of the University of Edinburgh, and the WHF’s Chair of the Air Pollution and Climate Change Expert Group told Health Policy Watch.

“This report essentially is like a reappraisal of the most recent World Health Organization (WHO) data to emphasize how bad the cardiovascular effects of air pollution are,” he said.

The report titled ‘Clearing the Air to Address Pollution’s Cardiovascular Health Crisis’ was launched during the World Heart Summit underway this weekend in Geneva, Switzerland. It represents one of the most sweeping reports, to date, by the global federation on a risk factor that many cardiologists have failed to fully acknowledge.

In terms of household air pollution – the link to CVD is also clear – if not quite as pronounced.

Amongst the 3.2 million deaths attributed to household air pollution in 2019, 53% was attributable to CVDs – including one million deaths from ischaemic heart disease and 700,000 from stroke.

Seen from the disease perspective, some 37% of all CVD deaths globally were attributable to air pollution in 2019, including 22% of deaths from ischaemic heart disease and 15% from stroke, according to the report.

Air pollution – the greatest single environmental health risk

The report calls air pollution “the greatest single environmental health risk.” In some regions air pollution is over ten times the recommended limit by the WHO, the report noted.

Air pollution levels have remained stagnant in many parts of the world, or even increased slightly, despite increased awareness of its harms.

Cardiovascular disease kills more than 20 million people every year globally. Air pollution has the most impact on people with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, the report said.

The report warned that without adequate policies in place, deaths and disability from cardiovascular conditions caused or worsened by air pollution is set to increase further.

“These two reports highlight how critical it is for governments to prioritise measures to rapidly improve air quality, to save lives and reduce the toll and cost of cardiovascular disease – the world’s biggest killer,” said Nina Renshaw, Head of Health at the Clean Air Fund. “The fact that air pollution is the number one risk factor driving the global burden of disease requires attention from health donors too. Efforts to tackle air pollution remain chronically underfunded, receiving only 1% of global development funding in recent years. Air pollution must quickly become a higher priority in global health.”

Why air pollution is such a CVD killer

In fact, while not intuitive, there are clear physiological reasons why air pollution, and particular fine particulates are so closely associated with heart disease and stroke.

Air pollution particles are absorbed in tissue deep in the lungs where they can cause inflammation setting the stage for chronic lung disease and cancers. But the finest particles, of PM2.5 or smaller in diameter, penetrate the lung walls and enter the bloodstream. Circulating in arteries and veins of the body and the brain, these fine particles exacerbate the build-up of plaque over time, as well as contributing to the constriction of the arteries, setting up a perfect storm of conditions for heart disease and stroke.

Air pollution-related CVD deaths increasing sharply in Southeast Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean 

The report also finds that the number of deaths from heart disease attributable to air pollution has increased in some regions by as much as 27% over the past decade.

A key reason for this is the rising air pollution levels in some countries of Southeast Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean, where average air pollution concentrations are nearly ten times the WHO – recommended levels, experts say.

The Western Pacific region saw the highest number of deaths from heart disease and stroke due to outdoor air pollution with nearly one million deaths in 2019, and the Southeast Asian Region was a close second, with 762,000 deaths.

Countries facing the some of greatest challenges with air pollution include those in the Eastern Mediterranean, with Kuwait, Egypt, and Afghanistan.

Real number of CVD deaths related to air pollution is likely higher

Moreover, the real number of CVD deaths from air pollution is in fact likely to be much higher, as currently, mortality is only assessed for a single air pollutant i.e PM2.5, and only for ischaemic heart disease and stroke, while there are a range of other cardiovascular diseases that may be exacerbated by air pollution.

“The reality is that there is a real lack of reliable and granular data, mostly due to the absence of ground monitoring systems. This is especially true in low-income settings where millions of people live in unmonitored areas,” said Mariachiara Di Cesare from the University of Essex who was involved with the WHF’s report.

“To give an example, IQAir’s 2023 World Air Quality Report provides a comprehensive overview of PM2.5 data across almost 8,000 cities in 134 countries, regions, and territories. When you look at Africa out of 54 African countries, only 24 have the capacity to monitor air quality in some capacity, with most of the existing stations concentrated in the western and southern regions of the continent,” Di Cesare said.

This makes the results of the report an underestimate, Cesare told Health Policy Watch. She said that improved air pollution monitoring in both rural and urban areas will help provide more accurate estimates of air pollution levels and trends.  

Global distribution of PM2.5 monitoring stations

WHF study relies upon 2019 data – Lancet updates that air pollution is now the top killer

Significantly, the new WHF report relies upon 2019 data regarding air pollution impacts on cardiovascular health. The latest IHME Global Burden of Disease study, published in The Lancet, provides slightly updated data – linked to 2021. Also, the WHF report focuses its analysis primarily on air pollution related CVD deaths, while the Lancet study looks at both mortality and morbidity. But the overall message regarding the killer impacts of air pollution is the same.

Over 11,000 researchers were part of the IHME GBD study. Following air pollution, high blood pressure and smoking were the second and third-ranking risk factors contributing to excess disease and disability – or Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS). However, if all of the dozen or so

“These are groups of risk factors where the exposure to the risk factors is increasing. And then, that is exacerbated by these demographic factors, the growing populations, the aging populations,” said Brauer in a podcast unpacking the findings.

At the same time, if malnutrition risks are aggregated together, then they become the top risk, with air pollution ranking number 2, Brauer said, noting that the original IHME GBD analysis, upon which The Lancet publication was based, considered several “levels” of aggregation of the risks that were analysed. These malnutrition risks are mainly related to poor maternal, neonatal and early childhood nutrition, including infections from parasitic and water-borne diseases, tuberculosis and other respiratory conditions. Risk factors linked to unhealthy diets, including factors like high red meat consumption, low fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds; and high salt and sugar intake, ranked fifth in the aggregated analysis.

Malnutrition ranks first, with air pollution second, in a Global Burden of Disease analysis of aggregated risk factors (level 2), in the IHME analysis.

The 2021 Lancet study also looks at how health risks have evolved over the past two decades – comparing the most recent findings with those in 2000. That was the year that GBD study quantifying deaths and disease linked to a set of 25 environmental, occupational and behavioural health risks was published by the WHO. A comparison between the two shows risk factors that stagnated or become more significant, along with those that have moved down the list as conditions improved, notably for safe water, hygiene and sanitation.

While its ranking has varied somewhat over years, air Pollution was the leading risk factor for disease burden in the year 2000 and 2021, this graphic from the most recent IHME GBD study demonstrates.

Climate change is compounding impacts

Climate change is also turning out to be an additional stressor, compounding air pollution risks, as global temperature rise continues unabated, the WHF experts note.

This year has already seen heatwaves from Mali to India and temperatures have soared. Climate change has increased the frequency and the intensity of heatwaves, according to climate scientists. Heatwaves are also known to exacerbate underlying non-communicable diseases like diabetes and heart ailments as Health Policy Watch has reported earlier.

“That’s the sort of, that’s the sort of main message that the science is telling us now, as we’re starting to see all these environmental stressors compounding each other,” said Miller. “And you would expect that, for example, if you have heat waves that were accompanied by higher air pollution, that would make cardiovascular disease worse.”

Global air pollution-related healthcare costs are already projected to surge from $21 billion in 2015 to USD 176 billion in 2060, with annual lost working days potentially increasing to 3.7 billion by 2060. Any additional stressor will make the costs worse, the WHF report notes.

The key message, however, is that action will make a difference, Miller said. “While highlighting some really terrifying figures here, these huge numbers of deaths worldwide as well…we’re referring to them as preventable deaths, because air pollution is preventable. So, there’s an opportunity here, as well that, you know, if we can tackle these issues, and we know some of the measures to do so then hopefully, we will see improvements in cardiovascular health.”

–Updated to include reference to “malnutrition” risks and their ranking, as relates to air pollution, in the IHME analysis.

Image Credits: Unsplash, IHME, Clearing the Air to Address Pollution’s Cardiovascular Health Crisis report., Clearing the Air to Address Pollution’s Cardiovascular Health Crisis Report, IHME , Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.

The pandemic has reversed gains in life expectancy according to the WHO.

The COVID pandemic has wiped off a decade of steady gain in life expectancy at birth and healthy life expectancy at birth (HALE), according to the World Health Statistics 2024 report by the World Health Organization (WHO).

In the light of the findings the world health body has urged countries to redouble their efforts towards health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

“There continues to be major progress in global health, with billions of people who are enjoying better health, better access to services, and better protection from health emergencies,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “But we must remember how fragile progress can be. In just two years, the COVID-19 pandemic erased a decade of gains in life expectancy.”

Between 2019 and 2021 when the pandemic was raging, global life expectancy dropped by 1.8 years to 71.4 years (back to the level of 2012). Similarly, global healthy life expectancy dropped by 1.5 years to 61.9 years in 2021 (back to the level of 2012).

“This is the world’s report card on health. And the bottom line is that we are failing,” said Dr Samira Asma, Assistant Director-General, WHO Data, Analytics and Delivery for Impact Division during a press briefing. “Despite encouraging progress in some countries, and for some conditions, overall, life expectancy has fallen and shockingly. The world is not on track to achieve even single one of the 32 health-related sustainable development goals,” she said, summing up the key takeaways from the report.

Dr Samira Asma, Assistant Director-General, WHO Data, Analytics and Delivery for Impact Division

And the effects have been unequal across the world, according to the report.

Americas and South-East Asia hit the hardest

The WHO regions for the Americas and South-East Asia were hit hardest, with life expectancy dropping by approximately 3 years and healthy life expectancy by 2.5 years between 2019 and 2021.

In contrast, the Western Pacific Region was minimally affected during the first two years of the pandemic, with losses of less than 0.1 years in life expectancy and 0.2 years in healthy life expectancy.

COVID also rapidly emerged as a leading cause of death, ranking as the third highest cause of mortality globally in 2020 and the second in 2021. Nearly 13 million lives were lost to COVID during this period according to confirmed death data – which experts said only partially represented the true levels of mortality from the pandemic.

Except in the African and Western Pacific regions, COVID was among the top five causes of deaths, notably becoming the leading cause of death in the Americas for both years.

Non-communicable diseases back as the top killers

The WHO report also highlights that noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as ischaemic heart disease and stroke, cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, and diabetes, were the biggest killers before the pandemic, responsible for 74% of all deaths in 2019. Even during the pandemic, NCDs continued to account for 78% of non-COVID deaths.

The world also now faces a massive and complex problem of a double burden of malnutrition, where undernutrition coexists with overweight and obesity. In 2022, over one billion people aged five years and older were living with obesity, while more than half a billion were underweight.

Malnutrition in children was also striking, with 148 million children under five years old affected by stunting (too short for age), 45 million suffering from wasting (too thin for height), and 37 million overweight.

Progress in reducing maternal deaths has slowed or stagnated

Progress in averting maternal deaths has also slowed down or stagnated in many parts of the world.

“The number of women dying from a maternal cause has remained unacceptably high. Every two minutes a women dies from maternal causes equating 800 deaths every single day. Achieving SDG target of a 70 deaths per 100,000 live births by 2030 will avert over a million death among women at the global level,” said Dr Haidong Wang, Unit Head, Monitoring, Forecasting and Inequalities, WHO Data, Analytics and Delivery.

The report further highlights the significant health challenges faced by persons with disabilities, refugees and migrants. In 2021, about 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the global population, had disability. This group is disproportionately affected by health inequities resulting from avoidable, unjust and unfair conditions.

Access to healthcare for refugees and migrants remains limited, with only half of the 84 countries surveyed between 2018 and 2021 providing government-funded health services to these groups at levels comparable to their citizens, according to the report.

Dr Haidong Wang, Unit Head, Monitoring, Forecasting and Inequalities, WHO Data, Analytics and Delivery reading out the key highlights from the report.

Health-related SDGs unlikely to be met by 2030

Despite setbacks caused by the pandemic, the world has made some progress towards achieving the WHO’s Triple Billion targets, which aimed to improve the health of 3 billion people between 2019 and 2023, as well as the health-related indicators of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Since 2018, an additional 1.5 billion people achieved better health and well-being, WHO said in its report. Despite gains, rising obesity, high tobacco use, and persistent air pollution hinder progress.

Universal Health Coverage expanded to 585 million more people, falling short of the goal for one billion more people accessing UHC. Additionally, only 777 million more people are likely to be adequately protected during health emergencies by 2025, falling short of the one billion target set by the WHO for emergencies. This protection is increasingly important as the effects of climate change and other global crises increasingly threaten health security. Only 138 million people were living in healthier environments and lifestyles, far short of the 1 billion envisioned for that part of the Triple Billion Goal.

The progress is far from being enough. “While we have made progress towards the Triple Billion targets since 2018, a lot still needs be done. Data is WHO’s superpower. We need to use it better to deliver more impact in countries,” said Dr Asma.

Image Credits: Unsplash.

Mexican Ministry of Health video promoting vacccination in April 2021. As in many countries, critics alleged that the government’s moves in the early stages of the pandemic were not aggressive enough.

In December 2021, as the COVID pandemic continued to rage, WHO Member States established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR).

The outcome of the negotiations is to be presented at the 77th World Health Assembly, which will meet next week in Geneva.

Over the past two years, negotiators have worked tirelessly to meet this challenge, facing numerous obstacles along the way, including a very ambitious timeline for extremely complex negotiations.

As we await the outcome of this last-minute, adrenaline-fueled effort, the progress made so far is significant and represents the foundational steps toward improved global pandemic preparedness.

Even if some elements are left open for more detailed discussion in future negotiations, the advancements already achieved are significant – and should be secured by the WHA.

The proposal: an improved global PPPR set of rules

At the launch of the negotiating process, after extensive consultations with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, Member States spearheading this initiative began outlining the foundation for a new global, equitable system of PPPR.

Since the release of the Conceptual Zero Draft, in November 2022, the ambition for this instrument has remained high. Over the six iterations of the draft treaty text released in the past 18 months by the INB Bureau—two co-chairs and four vice-chairs from each of the WHO regions leading the process—the aim has been to cover the entire framework of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. 

The intention of negotiators has also been to ensure synergy and complementarity with the International Health Regulations (IHR), a task made more complex by the parallel process to amend the circa 2005 IHR  launched by the Health Assembly in 2022.

The draft pandemic document addresses diverse and complex areas such as One Health, global supply chain, local production of health products, research and development, transfer of technology and know-how, access to pandemic products, pathogen and benefit sharing, and sustainable and predictable financing for PPPR. Its overarching goal is to achieve health security with equity in all these aspects.

At each step of the negotiations, the scope of the work has largely remained true to the original ambition. The depth of certain provisions has certainly evolved, based on political acceptability. 

Some key provisions of initial drafts have now disappeared

WHO member states going line by line in May 2024, in an effort to agree on the proposed WHO instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

Some significant exceptions have emerged on key provisions. For instance, reference to human rights and accountability mechanisms, such as a strict reporting system and an implementation and compliance committee, have largely been eliminated from the current draft. However, the core building blocks of the agreement remain intact.

In this final negotiating stage, Member States are negotiating each article line-by-line. As they progress on their work, they use green highlights for parts with consensus and yellow highlights for parts that have reached consensus in working groups but not yet in plenary sessions.

While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these negotiations, an analysis of the green and yellow text as displayed in the draft document on May 10 indicates there would be significant changes, and to some extent improvement, in global readiness and response if the agreement is to be adopted.

Local production and R&D: a first-time step towards equity

Cape Town’s Afrigen Vaccines & Biologics. The pandemic highlighted the dearth of investment in vaccine R&D and manufacturing in developing countries.

On local production of pandemic products, the draft text attempts to respond to the concentration of manufacturing in a few countries in the world. It requests Member States to take measures to achieve more equitable geographical distribution and rapid scale-up of the global production of pandemic-related health products.

This aims to increase sustainable, timely, and equitable access to such products, and reduce the potential gap between supply and demand during pandemic emergencies. The text goes on to identify other collaborative measures Member States will endeavor to take, such as, for instance, supporting skills development and capacity-building, and promoting and incentivizing public and private sector investments. 

While it is not perfect, this is the first time that, to our knowledge, an international, legally-binding instrument seeks to expand local production of health products.

The provisions on research and development (R&D) yields a similar conclusion. While some delegates remain concerned about the imposition of new transparency obligations on R&D and tying global access conditions to publicly funded R&D, there appears to be consensus on the rest of the article. 

Notably, this would also be the first time an international treaty seeks to make R&D for health products more equitable and collaborative.

Pathogen and benefit sharing: a make-or-break article

Most countries agree that pathogen sharing needs to be timely and reliable – creating sharing mechanisms, while ensuring equitable benefit sharing, is challenging.

The draft agreement ambitiously aims to establish a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system as part of the Agreement, which would represent a new and binding obligation for nations that ratify the treaty.

Ensuring timely and reliable sharing of pathogen samples and genetic sequence information, along with equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization, is crucial for PPPR and access to health technologies. However, over time, it has become clear that a detailed articulation of PABS would be impossible to achieve by the May 2024 deadline – partly due to the complex technicalities that are involved.

For instance, while draft versions of the text had aimed to define a fixed proportion of vaccine and medicines set-asides to be offered for free or at concessionary prices in the event of a pandemic, agreement on a percentage has remained elusive and may not be responsive to changing conditions in a crisis. Similarly, how to ensure equity alongside other disease priorities remains an issue. 

Additionally, agreement is still lacking on other key aspects of the future system. Issues such as the use of standardized, legally binding contracts, user registration requirements, intellectual property rights, its relation with other international instruments, and equitable access to scientific and monetary benefits are still under discussion.

The negotiators of the PABS system will also have to take into account the parallel discussions concerning the establishment of a multilateral access and benefit sharing mechanism under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Agreement on ‘principles’ seems to be most likely outcome

Ethiopia representing the Africa group at pandemic agreement negotiations in March 2024.

In light of such complexities, negotiators seem to be close to agreeing on principles to be included in a future PABS instrument, listed under draft Article 12, with a proposal to finalize the details by May 2026 through a process open to all WHO member states – and to be launched by the World Health Assembly.

There is, however, agreement on a reaffirmation of  the principle of national sovereignty over biological resources.

Additionally, the emerging broad international recognition that the rapid sharing of pathogen samples and associated genetic sequence information should be linked to equitable benefit-sharing is significant. It responds to a key ask by developing countries to operationalize equity – even if some argue it doesn’t go far enough. 

Overall, it would be the first time governments agree on principles tailored for addressing ABS for pandemics in a legally-binding instrument.

The outstanding points can be addressed in future negotiations regarding the full operational details of the PABS system. 

One Health 

Live animal markets have been a hotspot for pathogen transmission to humans – one of the many issues that One Health principles aim to address.

Negotiators have worked intensively on how to integrate the One Health approach into the Pandemic Agreement. This approach acknowledges the interconnection between the health of people, animals, and ecosystems, marking its first inclusion in an international legally binding instrument.

Developed countries are the main supporters of this approach, while several developing countries have shown concern about the binding regulatory burden as well as the associated costs that One Health provisions in the agreement might impose on them.  Some developing countries have also expressed a concern that tight prescriptions on One Health may result in unpredictable obstacles to their agricultural trade. 

Despite these concerns, there seems to be a consensus on the importance of the inclusion of One Health as an essential approach to PPPR, especially in light of the fact that it is estimated that 75% of all emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, along with the adoption of selected measures that consider national circumstances. Further discussions after the World Health Assembly have been proposed, potentially to be included in a future Annex, but the outcome remains uncertain and will likely depend on the negotiations’ final stages. 

A glass half full: the road ahead

The current state of the Pandemic Accord can be seen as a glass half full. The green and yellow text represent a considerable step forward from the state of international law before the launch of the negotiations, promising significant improvements in global pandemic readiness and response.

To ensure the glass continues to fill, countries must establish a robust framework for ongoing work. This framework should list a common agenda of unresolved questions, outline guiding principles, and set a strict timetable for completion.  Delegates, on their side, must demonstrate the same determination and resilience they have shown over the past two years.

As the WHA approaches, the international community awaits the outcome with keen anticipation. If the international community can maintain its focus and commitment, the Pandemic Accord will not only represent an improvement over the status quo but also pave the way for a more resilient and equitable global health system.

Daniela Morich is Manager and Advisor at the Governing Pandemics Initiative hosted by the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute. 

Adam Strobeyko is a postdoctoral researcher for the Governing Pandemics Initiative.

Suerie Moon is co-director of the Global Health Centre.

Gian Luca Burci is Adjunct Professor of international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

Ava Greenup is a Project Associate of the Governing Pandemics Initiative. 

Image Credits: @RicardoDGPS, Chris Black/WHO, Rodger Bosch for MPP/WHO, NIAID-RML , lihkg.com.

An information and prevention campaign coupled with HIV testing in Côte d’Ivoire at a public transport hub. Despite outreach efforts, new infections from HIV/AIDs still are not declining fast enough to reach 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

New WHO data show that new infections from HIV/AIDS are not declining fast enough. Also, syphilis along with other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are increasing in many regions of the world, contrary to the ambitious targets set by the Sustainable Development Goals and WHO member states for ending the epidemics of AIDS, viral hepatitis B and C and sexually transmitted infections by 2030.

Altogether STIs caused 2.5 million deaths in 2022, according to the new WHO report, Implementing the global health sector strategies on HIV, viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections, 2022–2030, published Wednesday.

And the estimated number of deaths from viral hepatitis rose from 1.1 million deaths in 2019 to 1.3 million in 2022 despite the availability of effective prevention, diagnosis, and treatment tools. In 2022, around 1.2 million new hepatitis B cases and nearly 1 million new hepatitis C cases were recorded, the report also finds.

“The rising incidence of syphilis raises major concerns”, said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, in a press briefing on Wednesday. “Fortunately, there has been important progress on a number of other fronts including in accelerating access to critical health commodities including diagnostics and treatment.

“We have the tools required to end these epidemics as public health threats by 2030, but we now need to ensure that, in the context of an increasingly complex world, countries do all they can to achieve the ambitious targets they set themselves”.

Increasing incidence of sexually transmitted infections

Four curable STIs – syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis – account for over 1 million infections daily. The report notes a surge in adult and maternal syphilis (1.1 million) and associated congenital syphilis (523 cases per 100,000 live births per year) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022 alone, there were 230,000 syphilis-related deaths.

In 2022, member states set a target to reduce adult syphilis infections tenfold by 2030, reducing cases from 7.1 million to 0.71 million. Yet, new syphilis cases among adults aged 15-49 years actually increased by over a million cases in 2022 reaching as much as eight million, with the biggest increase in the Americas and the African Region, the WHO report found.

HIV infections among risk groups

Meanwhile, new HIV infections only declined from 1.5 million in 2020 to 1.3 million in 2022 – an inadequate trajectory to meet SDG target 3.3 to ‘eliminate the epidemic of AIDS’ by 2030. Five key population groups — men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, sex workers, transgender individuals, and individuals in prisons and other closed settings — still experience significantly higher HIV prevalence rates than the general population. An estimated 55% of new HIV infections occur among these populations and their partners.

The picture is no better with HIV-related deaths, still reaching high numbers. In 2022, there were 630,000 HIV-related deaths, 13% of these occurring in children under the age of 15 years.

New data also show an increase in multi-resistant gonorrhoea. As of 2023, out of 87 countries where enhanced gonorrhoea antimicrobial resistance surveillance was conducted, 9 countries reported elevated levels (from 5% to 40%) of resistance to ceftriaxone, the last line treatment for gonorrhoea. WHO is monitoring the situation and has updated its recommended treatment to reduce the spread of this multi-resistant gonorrhoea strain.

Gains in expanding service access

Efforts by countries and partners to expand services for STIs, HIV and hepatitis are nonetheless chalking up gains. WHO has validated 19 countries for eliminating mother-to-child transmission of HIV and/or syphilis, reflecting investments in testing and treatment coverage for these diseases among pregnant women. Botswana and Namibia are on the path to eliminating HIV, with Namibia being the first country to submit a dossier to be evaluated for the triple elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, hepatitis B and syphilis.

Globally, HIV treatment coverage reached 76%, with 93% of people receiving treatment achieving suppressed viral loads. Efforts to increase HPV vaccination and screening for women with HIV are ongoing. Diagnosis and treatment coverage for hepatitis B and C have seen slight improvements globally.

Image Credits: JB Russel/ The Global Fund/ Panos, WHO.

Prof Sharon Lewin, director of the Cumming Global Centre for Pandemic Therapeutics

During the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic development took a backseat to vaccines – a potentially disastrous gamble had vaccines not been found.

In future pandemics, therapeutics and vaccines should be treated equally – particularly as COVID-19 treatment options remain expensive and mostly only available in high-income countries, speakers told at a webinar this week hosted by the Cumming Global Centre for Pandemic Therapeutics in Melbourne.

During the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, $91 billion was publicly invested globally in vaccines compared to just $4.6 billion in therapeutics. 

“The first COVID-19 vaccine was approved in July 2020 and delivered to people in December 2020. However, the therapeutic drug, Paxlovid, was only first administered in late 2021 and approved by the US Federal Drug Administration in May 2023,” according to Cumming Centre, which is based at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity.

“If Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, or a similar therapeutic drug, had been available at scale in July 2020, in line with COVID-19 vaccine approval, millions of lives globally could have been prevented.”

Problems with ACT Accelerator

One of the problems during COVID-19 was the structure of the Access to COVID Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), the global structure that was set up to ensure low and middle-income countries had access to health products such as tests, vaccines, treatments and PPE, said Eloise Todd, executive director of the Pandemic Action Network.

ACT-A was divided into four separate pillars – vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and a ‘health systems connector’.

Civil society warned from early on that unless ACT-A had “a single fundraising strategy and a single entity that’s going to spend against an epidemiological strategy, you’re essentially setting up a competition between those forces”, added Todd.

Sure enough, “by September 2021, the vaccines pillar had achieved 95% of its fundraising target and the therapeutics pillar, just 19%”, she said, adding that the “vaccine gold rush approach” undermined the holistic management of COVID.

Generics also “came too late in the process to have an impact in lower middle income countries”, said Todd.

Eloise Todd, executive director of the Pandemic Action Network.

“When the next threat comes around, the epidemiological approach we need to take means that we have to have a bird’s eye, focused view on saving lives from Day One. So by all means, let’s have the R&D for vaccines, but we have to have the R&D for therapeutics. We also have to look at how to repurpose existing therapeutics.”

Shingai Machingaidze, co-chair of the Science and Technology Expert Group (STEG) of the International Pandemic Preparedness Secretariat (IPPS), said that the development pipeline for therapeutics faced “multiple hurdles, including long development timelines, regulatory challenges, and the need for robust clinical trial infrastructure growth globally”. 

A key recommendation of an expert review of the COVID-19 response commissioned by the G7 and G20 was the need for a global coalition focused on therapeutics, she said, adding that the IPPS is currently working on establishing such a coalition.

The aim is not to create a new entity but to bring together the existing entities and to ensure sustained R&D funding to develop at least two Phase 2-ready therapeutic candidates against individual viral pathogen families of greatest pandemic potential, added Machingaidze.

Shingai Machingaidze, co-chair of the Science and Technology Expert Group of the International Pandemic Preparedness Secretariat

HIV: No vaccine but effective ARVs

“Imagine a situation where we have a new pandemic, and we can’t make a vaccine or it takes 10 years to make a vaccine, not one year,” said Prof Sharon Lewin, director of both the Doherty and Cumming centres.

“As an example, after 40 years of research for HIV, there is still no HIV vaccine. However, therapeutics, but what I mean here is direct-acting antivirals or drugs that stop HIV from replicating, have turned HIV from a death sentence to a chronic manageable disease,” she added.

“Direct-acting antivirals can fill a gap. They can be a second layer of protection, or they can actually be the only intervention we have. So we need to really think hard about how we can make them better, make them faster and make them equitable.”

The Cumming Centre was launched in September 2022 as a joint venture of the University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital following a $250-million donation from Geoffrey Cumming, making it the “biggest philanthropic gift in the history of Australia”, said Lewin.

“We’re not a drug company, nor do we plan to do what companies already do well,” she added. 

“We plan to expand the pipeline for drug companies to ultimately commercialise and implement new therapeutics, so our goal is to focus on new platform technologies to develop therapeutics at speed for pathogens of pandemic potential.”

The centre’s goal is to provide “really long-term funding” to  projects that are “high risk, but also high reward”, added Lewin.

“We need treatment solutions, not only for pathogens that we know about but for pathogens that are totally unexpected. And we need to be able to develop those solutions in a much shorter time frame than what’s currently possible with our current technologies. I personally think this can be done but it will need new science, new ideas and transformational changes in how we approach therapeutics.”

Lewin added that her centre had a smaller focus on anti-microbial resistant (AMR) pathogens “because we think the likelihood it of causing a global pandemic is much smaller than a viral cause”.

Over-the-counter treatment can significantly boost global productivity, according to the Global Self-Care Federation.

The rising cost of healthcare is one of the most significant burdens on countries, especially low- and middle-income countries. Research has shown that self-care can be critical in reducing unnecessary expenses for healthcare systems. Global self-care activities generate substantial monetary and healthcare workforce savings, totalling at least approximately $119 billion per year, according to a policy brief published by the United for Self-Care Coalition.

“Increased access to self-care products and services could further alleviate the burden on health systems by freeing up resources and time for healthcare providers to attend to more serious conditions,” explained Judy Stenmark, Director General at the Global Self-Care Federation (GSCF). “Globally, a total of 10.9 billion individual hours and 1.8 billion physician hours are saved every year through self-care practices.”

content

The United for Self-Care Coalition is advocating for a WHO resolution on self-care by next year. It will hold a Global Summit at the 77th World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Assembly (WHA) to highlight why self-care is critical to achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). This dialogue will bring together a diverse set of stakeholders to advance the call to codify self-care as a vital component of the healthcare continuum.

Currently, there are WHO guidelines on self-care. However, the coalition believes that a resolution would better provide a framework for self-care’s integration into future economic and health policies and promote awareness of its importance. It said it would drive political commitment and help encourage countries to mobilise resources.

What is self-care?

According to GSCF, self-care can be defined in several ways. First, adopting a healthy lifestyle by staying active and eating nutritious foods while avoiding unhealthy habits like smoking and drinking too much alcohol.

Next, using both prescription and over-the-counter medications responsibly.

Finally, self-recognition, monitoring and management. This includes assessing your symptoms and seeking help from a healthcare professional when needed, monitoring your condition to track any changes, and managing your symptoms independently, with healthcare professionals, or with others with the same condition.

Does it work?

In a general sense, self-care empowers individuals to manage many health conditions conveniently and effectively on their own, leading to greater access to quality healthcare, the federation said. It also enables individuals to take control of their health and well-being, motivating them to enhance their quality of life. Self-care can be essential for preventing certain conditions and speeding up recovery when prevention isn’t possible.

Finally, self-care helps with rising healthcare costs.

“Short-term investments in self-care lead to demonstrable long-term savings for governments and healthcare industries across the world,” GSCF said on its website. “Self-care eases the workload of strained healthcare systems by enabling them to allocate resources more efficiently and effectively.”

In a policy paper highlighting the importance of self-care to reduce non-communicable diseases (NCDs), GSCF provided the following data points:

  • Over-the-counter treatment can significantly boost global productivity, resulting in around 40.8 billion productive days and $1,879 billion in welfare benefits.
  • Future cost savings are estimated at approximately $178.8 billion annually, with productivity gains reaching 71.9 billion productive days annually.
  • Additional self-care practices, including preventive care, oral health care, and the use of vitamins and mineral supplements, can further enhance these benefits.

The First Global Self-Care Summit, themed “Self-Care in Action Empowering Health and Well-Being,” will take place on 28 May at 6 p.m. CET in Geneva. Representatives from key countries such as Costa Rica, Malawi and Egypt have signed on as co-hosts of the event and the hope is that they and others will offer official support for the resolution.

To register, click here.

“We are actively pursuing the adoption of a WHO Resolution on Self-Care because self-care is a fundamental component for the sustainability of our health systems and for the health and well-being of everybody,” GSCF’s Stenmark concluded.

Image Credits: Shutterstock.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa (left) visits Aspen Pharmacare manufacturing facility during the pandemic.

CAPE TOWN – Moderna tried to extract a huge price for its COVID-19 vaccine from the South African government at the height of the pandemic, according to the local NGO, Health Justice Initiative (HJI), in revelations made public this week.

The US-based pharma company wanted to charge $42 per vaccine in mid-2021 when vaccines were scarce, reducing this to $32.30 in the third quarter and $28.50 by the fourth quarter.

In comparison, Pfizer offered its vaccines for $10 per dose over the same period – which, although less than a quarter of Moderna’s ask, was still higher than the price paid by the European Union.

Moderna also expected South Africa to pay to transport the vaccine from its European offices, and demanded broad indemnification clauses and a 15-year confidentiality agreement, according to HJI.

Ultimately, South Africa did not procure vaccines from Moderna.

HJI resorted to the High Court in South Africa to get the correspondence between its government and drug companies during the pandemic, and released a second round of analysis of the documents this week, following a previous analysis in September 2023.

HJI director Fatima Hassan said that their analysis of the negotiation documents, done with the help of the nonprofit consumer advocacy organisation Public Citizen, “reveals a pattern of bullying and attempts to extract one-sided terms, especially by pharma giants Moderna and Pfizer all while they profiteered from a global health emergency”. 

“What these documents make clear is that corporations can and will exploit the conditions of public health emergencies to coerce governments, particularly those in low-and middle-income countries, into accepting unreasonable agreements on the supply of life-saving medicines,” said Jishian Ravinthiran, a researcher with Public Citizen, addressing a media briefing this week.

“International efforts to address future global health emergencies, like the pandemic accord, must include robust provisions and safeguards to rein in these corporate interests and ensure the rapid, equitable supply of vital countermeasures for everyone.”

HJI director Fatima Hassan

Pfizer pursued secrecy

Pfizer wanted a 10-year non-disclosure agreement, but the negotiation documents show South African officials did try to include provisions to “mitigate the unfettered power and control Pfizer sought to exercise over the supply agreement, but that was largely unsuccessful in the end”, said HJI. 

Pfizer rejected provisions that would have permitted the disclosure of confidential information in emergency circumstances and for bolstering transparency and trust in the vaccination programme. 

This is despite South African government officials referring the World Health Assembly’s (WHA) resolution about the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines, and other health products, and warning that these provisions may hamper oversight from lawmakers and the country’s Auditor General.

“The totality of the agreements signed and the negotiation records show that these companies shamelessly wanted secrecy, and no transparency and that they profiteered at the public’s expense during the pandemic,” said Hassan. 

The report concludes that contractual bullying by monopolistic pharma corporations undermined South Africa’s vaccination programme to the detriment of its people. It calls for mandating transparency around procuring lifesaving vaccines and medicines using public funds in any health emergency.

Voluntary mechanisms fall short

Prof Matthew Kavanagh, director of the Global Health Policy and Politics Initiative at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University in the US, said that the South African example was a lesson for those negotiating a pandemic agreement in Geneva at present.

Georgetown University’s Matthew Kavanagh (left) and Luis Gil Abinader.

“There has been a lot of talk [in the negotiations] about how we can use voluntary mechanisms in the middle of a pandemic to secure access; that countries will share their technology and that the best we should do is just secure a certain percent of vaccine doses for the World Health Organisation because that is what will secure equity,” said Kavanagh.

“But here we have a G20 member unable to secure equity. What do you think was happening in low and middle-income countries that have far less power than South Africa?”

He added that the evidence gathered from the South Africa negotiations shows that vaccine production had to be decentralised to LMICs, although with tech and knowledge transfer.

“Until we do that, no low and middle income country is going to have enough power to actually get equitable access. That is something that needs to be at the negotiating table in Geneva.”

Need to ‘do better in future’

Public Citizen’s Peter Maybarduk

Public Citizen’s Peter Maybarduk said that similar “extraordinary deference to drug companies” had emerged in Brazil and Colombia where “contracts or fragments of contracts have come to light over the years”.

He described the “extraordinary secrecy” as a major problem: “Fragmenting the world down into many health agencies, who do not know what the other is exactly negotiating and what terms are being set, very much reduces public power, transparency, and the ability of health agencies to make informed decisions, let alone the collective action that’s really necessary to have a global health response.

“Ideally, we’d want health agencies the world over coordinating and understanding where [vaccine] doses are going, when, on what terms, so that we can get as many vaccines to as many people as possible in as short a time as possible,” added Maybarduk.

“Instead, we have a commercial practice being managed by companies under extraordinary secrecy with long-term bars on disclosure. We’re going to have to do better in the future.”

Maybarduk said that the pandemic agreement provides some options for improvement, including conditions on public research and development grants that underpin much pharmaceutical investment.

“But we’re going to need national action as well and some concerted collective action to set different expectations for vaccine contracts and contracting during public health emergencies.”