News: Announcement

Today the Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC) welcomes Erin Will Morton as its Coalition Director. Morton joins the GHTC from her previous position as Senior Policy and Advocacy Advisor at the District Policy Group. While at the District Policy Group, Morton worked with a range of clients to develop and implement strategic government relations and advocacy programs. Morton has extensive experience in managing and convening coalitions and building support among coalition member organizations, and she has worked on a variety of policy areas, including grassroots advocacy, global health, medical simulation, Medicare reimbursement, and cancer care. Before joining the District Policy Group, Erin worked in the political department of NARAL, a national nonprofit women’s reproductive health organization in Washington, DC, where she participated in grassroots organizing during the 2006 Congressional elections. Erin received her bachelor’s degree from Dickinson College and a master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University. Morton is succeeding Kaitlin Christenson, who served as GHTC Coalition Director from May 2009 to October 2014.

The Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC) today released a new paper—co-authored with the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), and PATH—which makes a case for why the research and development (R&D) of new and improved high-priority health technologies targeting the needs of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) should be a critical component of the post-2015 development agenda. The paper—The Role of Research and Innovation in the Post-2015 Development Agenda—builds upon the findings of The Lancet Commission on Investing in Health and existing literature by: Highlighting the ways in which R&D for health has contributed significantly to progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Discussing the rationale for continuous prioritization of R&D for health in the post-2015 development agenda Providing preliminary suggestions for areas to consider as potential indicators of progress in global health R&D and innovation While the paper details how past R&D investments have led to new health products which have driven significant progress toward achieving the health-related MDGs in the last decade, it also argues that current health technologies and levels of R&D investment are insufficient to overcome existing and emerging health threats and ultimately achieve the goals of the post-2015 agenda—poverty eradication and sustainable development. As the global community organizes around these ambitious goals, the paper calls on key players to recognize the value of health improvements in ending poverty and the role that research and innovation for new health technologies plays in not only improving health outcomes, but also driving economic growth and progress in LMICs. The paper notes the recommendations of The Lancet Commission on Investing in Health—which in its Global Health 2035 report—calls for a doubling of current R&D investments in health from all countries to bridge the health divide between the richest and the poorest in a generation. The Commission’s recommendation is based on data demonstrating that past investments in health innovation have driven not only significant progress in terms of increasing valuable life years in LMICs, but also in terms of economic growth. While adequate financing for health innovation is critical to spur the development of new health tools, it alone does not guarantee the development of more products and the right type of products for those populations most in need. Therefore, the paper recommends that any indicators used to measure progress against targets described in the post-2015 agenda also measure R&D outputs, as well as the enabling environment for innovation—including infrastructure, capacity, enabling policies, and partnerships. The paper concludes by noting that the post-2015 development agenda presents an opportunity for LMICs to set their own health and research priorities and to assert their leadership in strengthening the R&D landscape focused on the needs of the poorest and most marginalized populations. Finally, it calls for broad agreement among stakeholders that research and innovation for health—which includes both the scaling up of proven health interventions, as well as the development of new and improved technologies—is critical to meeting the ambitious goals of the post-2015 agenda. In addition to releasing this paper to inform discussion and debate, COHRED, GHTC, and IAVI released a petition last week—signed by over 150 organizations and individuals—calling for support in the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals-Framework the research, development, and delivery of new and improved medicines, vaccines, and other health tools for the diseases and health conditions that predominantly affect LMICs as well as marginalized, vulnerable populations globally.

The Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC) today released the fifth and final paper and a summary of findings paper in its briefing series examining financing, accessibility, regulatory, and capacity issues facing nonprofits engaged in global health research and development (R&D). The five-part series aims to inform policymakers and other stakeholders with an interest in advancing R&D to meet health needs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The series focuses on nonprofit product development organizations (NPPDs), or nongovernmental organizations that partner with the public, philanthropic, and private sectors to develop health products specifically targeting poverty-related and neglected diseases in LMICs.NPPDs play a vital role in bringing together the fragmented resources and expertise of the various sectors involved in neglected disease R&D. The fifth and final paper examines efforts by NPPDs to strengthen the research and manufacturing capacity of academic, nongovernmental, and commercial partners in LMICs. The summary of findings paper provides an overview of the key challenges, lessons, and potential solutions identified by NPPDs in their efforts to advance the development of new vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, microbicides, and other health products for LMICs. The final paper on capacity-strengthening finds that while the mission of NPPDs is developing new health products, rather than capacity-building, many NPPDs have had to actively invest in improving the capacity and infrastructure of their local product development partners. This is because research and manufacturing infrastructure in LMICs remains weak, and many local partners have limited or no experience in conducting research and manufacturing in line with international safety and quality standards. NPPDs are engaged in capacity-strengthening work such as upgrading research and manufacturing facilitates, providing training across many skill sets, and transferring technological knowledge. In the capacity paper, NPPDs offer a set of key lessons that they and their partners have learned in trying to strengthen local research and manufacturing capacity to bring new health technologies to those most in need: There must be a shared commitment among partners to comply with international technical and ethical standards to ensure volunteers’ safety and rights as well as to facilitate access to high-quality products among those in need. Capacity-strengthening investments must weigh accelerating the near-term availability of much-needed products against the potential of lengthier timelines to increase capacity. At times, the need to accelerate access to a product may take precedence over local capacity strengthening. Capacity strengthening should enable home-grown solutions and local product development to be responsive to existing needs and emerging challenges. These efforts should enable local engagement and country ownership of health research, related product development, and manufacturing in endemic countries. Capacity-strengthening investment needs to be sustainable and enable LMICs to leverage the value of this increased capacity for their continued future growth. Because capacity strengthening can be a time-consuming and complex endeavor, donors and governments in endemic countries must commit to financing and enforcing international research and manufacturing standards to ensure an even playing field for the long-term sustainability of these efforts. The summary paper concludes that NPPDs face a number of challenges including insufficient funding, shortcomings in regulatory systems, and limited local research and manufacturing capacity which hinder progress on R&D for poverty-related and neglected diseases in LMICs. However, NPPDs have identified a number of solutions to address these challenges including working toward securing more predictable, stable, and long-term funding across all phases of product development, diversifying funding sources and improving coordination across funders. As well, NPPDs are seeking policy changes and sustainable funding to improve regulatory capacity and pathways and working to strengthen local partners’ research and manufacturing capacities to meet international standards. This fifth and final paper—Briefing Paper, Volume 5: Working with partners to strengthen local research and manufacturing capacity—and the summary of findings paper—Advancing research and development to address poverty-related and neglected diseases and conditions—are part of a series from the GHTC that examines financing, accessibility, regulatory, and capacity issues facing NPPDs. The series aims to inform global policy and financing discussions about R&D for neglected and poverty-related diseases affecting LMICs.

While a ceasefire in Washington’s budget wars has restored funding for a range of programs targeting global health threats like AIDS and tuberculosis (TB), the simultaneous underfunding of the world’s biggest sponsor of global health research and development (R&D) puts future progress at risk, warns a new report from a coalition of nonprofit groups focused on advancing innovation to save lives. The Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC) released their annual policy report today at a Capitol Hill briefing. “The end of political gridlock in Washington put many global health programs on firmer footing with one notable exception: it continued to weaken the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is the engine that drives innovation in the fight against infectious diseases,” said Kaitlin Christenson, MPH, director of the GHTC. The report, Innovation for a changing world: The role of US leadership in global health R&D, examines the state of global health R&D in the wake of a bipartisan agreement reached earlier this year to end an acrimonious budget battle. The GHTC report applauds efforts to halt draconian cuts that were crippling global health programs. And it calls for a long-term budget solution to sustain R&D efforts that are delivering a wealth of new tools to fight diseases that disproportionately affect poor countries.The report places a high priority on urging Congress to approve the 21st Century Global Health Technology Act and seeks a stronger role for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in delivering new products for neglected diseases. The big news for global health programs was the accord signed into law earlier this year that halted the so-called “sequestration” cuts that hit programs across the government in March of 2013 after negotiations over federal spending collapsed. The agreement revived appropriations for an array of global health initiatives. But when the dust settled, the NIH budget for 2014—while $1 billion above its 2013 post-sequester funding—was actually $950 million less than the agency received in 2012. In particular, two NIH institutes critical to sparking global health innovations—the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development—have less money, in actual dollars, in 2014 than they had in 2012. A report by the Congressional Research Service found that when adjusted for inflation, funding for NIH—which leads the world in support for global health R&D—has been steadily declining for years, with the agency’s real spending power down by 22 percent compared to 2003. “These cuts are short-sighted because our global leadership in the life sciences, a sector which contributes $69 billion annually to the US economy alone, rests on a foundation built with NIH-funded research,” said Steve Davis, president and CEO of PATH. “Just this past November, researchers from NIAID and Harvard announced they had developed a potentially transformative new treatment for HIV—and that’s precisely the kind of work we put at risk by failing to adequately support NIH.” The GHTC report asserts that the budget reductions triggered by the sequestration process were having a major impact on the global fight against infectious diseases. For example, clinical trial sites in the US and abroad involved in testing a new TB drug were forced to shut down. The GHTC report also asserts that reduced funding for programs that provide poor countries with HIV/AIDS treatments and tools to control malaria may have resulted in thousands of preventable deaths. The GHTC makes a case for stronger, more reliable funding for global health R&D by noting that US investments have consistently delivered valuable returns and that future breakthroughs are close at hand. It finds that between 2000 and 2010, the US government was involved in more than half of the vaccines, drugs, diagnostic tools, and devices that were developed to address global health problems. And US funding is now linked to 200 of the 365 global health products moving through the R&D pipeline. Some of the products in development with US government support—and which could fail if that support falters—include: New drugs to treat TB and malaria. A new microbicide that women could use to prevent HIV infections, which could avert 2.5 million HIV infections and save $2.7 billion in health care costs. New insecticides to help control insects that spread diseases such as dengue fever, Chagas disease, filariasis and leishmaniasis, which are a major cause of serious illness and death in developing countries. New tools that would make diagnosing malaria, HIV, and TB easier and faster, especially in low-resource settings. A vaccine for preventing HIV infections. The GHTC is urging Congress to make sure these and other tools become a reality by developing a long-term plan for retaining and expanding US leadership in global health product development. The GHTC notes that this work can begin with a 2015 budget agreement that provides strong support for global health programs government-wide. For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the GHTC recommends providing $464 million for the Center for Global Health and $445 million for the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. The GHTC also is recommending a 2015 budget of $4.7 billion for the FDA, which plays an important role in ensuring the safety and efficacy of health products for neglected diseases; $32 billion for NIH; and $10.358 billion for global health programs at the US Department of State and US Agency for International Development. The GHTC also is seeking policy changes that would strengthen US-supported work in global health product development. And GHTC is calling for FDA to continue expanding its role in global health by allocating funding to match its global health commitments and ensuring it has the authority to review health products for all neglected diseases. Finally, the GHTC is urging US government officials to play a stronger role within the World Health Assembly as that body develops and funds a series of global health demonstration projects. And it wants to ensure that global health research is prominent in the Sustainable Development Goals now being drafted to replace the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.