Foreign Aid & Civil Society

Health Update: IFC Healthcare Fund, Clinton HIV drugs, Gates Foundation Strategy

Oodles of news on global public health.

1. The FT carries an article on IFC’s plans to create an Africa healthcare fund of about $500 million. According to the report, the agency has been funding work, in collaboration with the Gates Foundation, to develop an equity, debt and technical assistance fund to finance commercial healthcare projects. McKinsey has already conducted a $2.6 million research project on the issue. The eventual fund may be co-funded by the IFC, Gates Foundation, and other funders.

Equally interesting, perhaps, is CGDev’s post on the Global Health Policy blog on this article, suggesting IFC may not find it so easy to develop and disburse such a fund, focussed solely on Africa. As the post points out, IFC will find it extremely difficult to identify commercially viable enterprises in low and middle-income countries, that cater primarily to the poor. As proof, it shows that most current IFC funding in healthcare delivery has been targetted at hospitals and enterprises that target high-income population segments. Referring to the IFC portfolio, the post also points out that only 3 current investments are in Africa. The question it raises is whether Africa can really absorb this funding, except for high-income segments.

2. CNN reports on a deal by the Clinton Foundation to lower the cost of second line HIV treatment for low and middle income countries. The deal between the Foundation and Indian generic drug makers Cipla and Matrix Laboratories, will result in savings of 25% for low-income and 50% for middle-income countries, at a price of $339 per patient per year.

The pill in question is a triple cocktail of tenofovir, lamivudine and efavirenz. It should be noted that Brazil broke the patent on efavirenz last Friday – a drug produced by Merck – following on the footsteps of Thailand.

3. The BMJ has an article (by way of SciDev.Net) suggesting the Gates Foundation could do more for global public health. A long article, it argues that while the Foundation’s work is indeed innovative and likely to deliver significant new drugs and treatment for neglected diseases, its work may languish in labs because there of poor delivery systems to get the treatments to the poor.

observers are starting to question whether all this money is reaping sufficient rewards. For although the foundation has given a huge boost to research and development into technologies against some of the world’s most devastating and neglected diseases, critics suggest that its reluctance to embrace research, demonstration, and capacity building in health delivery systems is worsening the gap between what technology can do and what is actually happening to health in poor communities. This situation, critics charge, is preventing the Gates’s grants from achieving their full potential.