$500m pledge makes China top WHO donor after US withdrawal
China has pledged $500 million over five years to the World Health Organization, stepping in as the largest state donor after the United States' withdrawal from the United Nations health agency.
Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong made the commitment during the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva. The pledge comes as the WHO grapples with its deepest financial crisis in decades, caused by President Donald Trump's decision in January to withdraw from the agency and stop funding. The U.S., previously the largest contributor, left a $600 million shortfall in the organization's 2025 budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
2 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Japan begins pre-entry TB checks for foreigners staying over 3 months
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japan introduced mandatory pre-arrival tuberculosis screening on Monday for people planning to stay over three months, starting with those from the Philippines and Nepal, a government official said. Vietnam is expected to be added to the list in September, with Indonesia, Myanmar and China to follow. The number of foreign nationals diagnosed with the infectious disease while in Japan is on the rise, and they are comprised mostly of people from the six countries, according to the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry. The screening requirement will initially apply to citizens who normally reside in the Philippines and Nepal, and plan to stay in Japan over a mid to long term. They will be obliged to provide evidence that they are not infected with tuberculosis before their arrival or will be denied entry. While tuberculosis is curable and preventable, it killed an estimated 1.25 million people in 2023 and has likely regained its status as the world's deadliest infectious disease after being temporarily overtaken by COVID-19, according to the World Health Organization. In Japan, the number of tuberculosis patients fell below 10 per 100,000 people for the first time in 2021, reaching 9.2 and placing the country in the WHO's low-incidence category. The rate declined further to 8.1 in 2023, according to the latest health ministry data.
Nikkei Asia
10 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
Chinese biotech is having a 'DeepSeek moment'
Analysts view a current wave of dealmaking as a watershed moment for China's biotech industry and a vital source of capital for domestic firms. CHEN XI and HAN WEI, Caixin In a resounding vote of confidence in China's biotechnology sector, leading global pharmaceutical companies are striking multibillion-dollar deals for innovative therapies developed by Chinese firms. These deals mark a pivotal point for China's role in global drug development and have sparked a capital market frenzy. In late May, Pfizer agreed to pay $1.25 billion upfront to 3SBio, a Shenyang-based biotech firm, for the rights to a promising anti-tumor drug. The agreement could eventually be worth up to $6.05 billion.
Japan Today
11 hours ago
- Japan Today
When developing countries band together, lifesaving drugs become cheaper and easier to buy − with trade-offs
Pooling procurement of drugs could increase the availability of essential treatments around the globe. By Lucy Xiaolu Wang and Nahim Bin Zahur Procuring lifesaving drugs is a daunting challenge in many low- and middle-income countries. Essential treatments are often neither available nor affordable in these nations, even decades after the drugs entered the market. Prospective buyers from these countries face a patent thicket, where a single drug may be covered by hundreds of patents. This makes it costly and legally difficult to secure licensing rights for manufacturing. These buyers also face a complex and often fragile supply chain. Many major pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to sell their products in unprofitable markets. Quality assurance adds another layer of complexity, with substandard and counterfeit drugs widespread in many of these countries. Organizations such as the United Nations-backed Medicines Patent Pool have effectively increased the supply of generic versions of patented drugs. But the problems go beyond patents or manufacturing – how medicines are bought are also crucially important. Buyers for low- and middle-income countries are often health ministries and community organizations on tight budgets that have to negotiate with sellers that may have substantial market power and far more experience. We are economists who study how to increase access to drugs across the globe. Our research found that while pooling orders for essential medicines can help drive down costs and ensure a steady supply to low- and middle-income countries, there are trade-offs that require flexibility and early planning to address. Understanding these trade-offs can help countries better prepare for future health emergencies and treat chronic conditions. Pooled procurement reduces drug costs One strategy low-income countries are increasingly adopting to improve treatment access is 'pooled procurement.' That's when multiple buyers coordinate purchases to strengthen their collective bargaining power and reduce prices for essential medicines. For example, pooling can help buyers meet the minimum batch size requirements some suppliers impose that countries purchasing individually may not satisfy. Countries typically rely on four models for pooled drug procurement: -- One method, called decentralized procurement, involves buyers purchasing directly from manufacturers. -- Another method, called international pooled procurement, involves going through international institutions such as the Global Fund's Pooled Procurement Mechanism or the United Nations. -- Countries may also purchase prescription drugs through their own central medical stores, which are government-run or semi-autonomous agencies that procure, store and distribute medicines on behalf of national health systems. This method is called centralized domestic procurement. -- Finally, countries can also go through independent nonprofits, foundations, nongovernmental organizations and private wholesalers. We wanted to understand how different procurement methods affect the cost of and time it takes to deliver drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, because those three infectious diseases account for a large share of deaths and cases worldwide. So we analyzed over 39,000 drug procurement transactions across 106 countries between 2007 and 2017 that were funded by the Global Fund, the largest multilateral funder of HIV/AIDS programs worldwide. We found that pooled procurement through international institutions reduced prices by 13% to 20% compared with directly buying from drug manufacturers. Smaller buyers and those purchasing drugs produced by only a small number of manufacturers saw the greatest savings. In comparison, purchasing through domestic pooling offered less consistent savings, with larger buyers seeing greater price advantages. The Global Fund and the United Nations were especially effective at lowering the prices of older, off-patent drugs. Trade-offs with pooled procurements Cost savings from pooled drug procurement may come with trade-offs. While the Global Fund reduced unexpected delivery delays by 28%, it required buyers to place orders much earlier. This results in longer anticipated procurement lead time between ordering and delivery – an average of 114 days more than that of direct purchases. In contrast, domestic pooled procurement shortened lead times by over a month. Our results suggest a core tension: Pooled procurement improves prices and reliability but can reduce flexibility. Organizations that facilitate pooled procurement tend to prioritize medicines that can be bought at high volume, limiting the availability of other types of drugs. Additionally, the longer lead times may not be suitable for emergency situations. With the spread of COVID-19, several large armed conflicts and tariff wars, governments have become increasingly aware of the fragility of the global supply chain. Some countries, such as Kenya, have sought to reduce their dependence on international pooling since 2005 by investing in domestic procurement. But a shift toward domestic self-sufficiency is a slow and difficult process due to challenges with quality assurance and large-scale manufacturing. It may also weaken international pooled systems, which rely on broad participation to negotiate better terms with suppliers. Interestingly, we found little evidence that international pooled procurement influences pricing for the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a major purchaser of HIV treatments for developing countries. PEPFAR-eligible products do not appear to benefit more from international pooled procurement than noneligible ones. However, domestic procurement institutions were able to secure lower prices for PEPFAR-eligible products. This suggests that the presence of a large donor such as PEPFAR can cut costs, particularly when countries manage procurement internally. USAID cuts and global drug access While international organizations such as the Medicines Patent Pool and the Global Fund can address upstream barriers such as patents and procurement in the global drug supply chain, other institutions are essential for ensuring that medicines actually reach patients. The U.S. Agency for International Development had played a significant role in delivering HIV treatment abroad through PEPFAR. The Trump administration's decision in February 2025 to cut over 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts amounted to a US$60 billion reduction in overall U.S. assistance globally. An estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths are already happening, and millions more will likely die. The World Health Organization warned that eight countries, including Haiti, Kenya, Nigeria and Ukraine, could soon run out of HIV treatments due to these aid cuts. In South Africa, HIV services have already been scaled back, with reports of mass layoffs of health workers and HIV clinic closures. These downstream cracks can undercut the gains from efforts to make procuring drugs more accessible if the drugs can't reach patients. Because HIV, tuberculosis and malaria often share the same treatment infrastructure – including drug procurement and distribution networks, laboratory systems, data collection, health workers and community-based services – disruption in the management of one disease can ripple across the others. Researchers have warned of a broader unraveling of progress across these infectious diseases, describing the fallout as a potential 'bloodbath' in the global HIV response. Research shows that supporting access to treatments around the world doesn't just save lives abroad. It also helps prevent the next global health crisis from reaching America's doorstep. Lucy Xiaolu Wang is Assistant Professor, Department of Resource Economics, UMass Amherst. Nahim Bin Zahur Assistant Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Ontario. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
