« Previous | Main | Next »

February 12, 2006

Advance market commitments vs. diseases

G8 nations met over the weekend to discuss their plan to stimulate vaccine development for poor countries that cannot afford them.

Under an advance market commitment plan, the G-8 nations would promise to subsidize the purchase of new vaccines -- for between $800 million and $6 billion -- if pharmaceuticals companies develop ones that meet standards of efficacy and safety. Once the G-8 spends the pledged amount, the drug companies would sell the vaccine at a set discount in the developing world.

The idea is to ensure that companies get a substantial, upfront, government-backed financial incentive to develop the drugs, even if they ultimately have to sell them at a low price. "By restoring appropriate incentives," advance market commitments "can stimulate private research and investment, accelerate the discovery of new vaccines, save lives and contribute to economic development in a cost-effective way."

…The plan aims to address a paradox in the pharmaceutical world: The countries that most need certain drugs are the ones that can least afford them. The result is that drug companies often focus research in areas that are more profitable while poor nations are ravaged by infectious diseases that otherwise might be successfully fought.

Update: Phil points us to some objections about the plan.

Comments (4) Bookmark E-mail Facebook   

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515e9269e200d834641e9a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Advance market commitments vs. diseases:

» The economics of vaccine commitments from PSD Blog - World Bank Group
The Center for Global Development has released a working paper that puts some numbers and momentum behind the G8's advanced market commitment idea for vaccines in developing countries. Sponsors would commit to paying a minimum price per person immunize... [Read More]

Comments

There are valid objections to this plan. See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,16849-2037289,00.html


On the basis of the article in the Times, I am not sure how Phil concludes that the objections are "valid". Andrew Farlow's previous objections have not been at all persuasive.


I find this to be another "oil for food" idea. How will this be administered? The development time for the diseases mentioned will take anywhere from 2 to 15 years. Absent from the list is any vaccine development agreement for avian influenza. This topic is more fully discussed on http://www.flutrackers.com


There is now a website geared to inform interested individuals about the AMC, which was announced in Rome on February 9, 2007 by the core funders. See http://www.vaccineamc.org .


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Search

Our Sponsor



Private Sector Home | Public Policy Journal | Toolkits | Business Environment Snapshots | Business Planet
©2009 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Legal. Terms of Service.