When developing countries band together, lifesaving drugs become cheaper and easier to buy − with trade-offs
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.
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.
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.
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.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Lucy Xiaolu Wang, UMass Amherst and Nahim Bin Zahur, Queen's University, Ontario
Read more:
Pharma's expensive gaming of the drug patent system is successfully countered by the Medicines Patent Pool, which increases global access and rewards innovation
Cutting HIV aid means undercutting US foreign and economic interests − Nigeria shows the human costs
Grassroots AIDS activists fought for and won affordable HIV treatments around the world – but PEPFAR didn't change governments and pharma
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
7 hours ago
- UPI
Colombia joins BRICS-backed bank in shift toward new financial order
June 20 (UPI) -- Colombia's recent entry into the BRICS-backed New Development Bank marks a significant shift in its foreign and economic policy. With the move, President Gustavo Petro's administration aims to reduce the country's long-standing reliance on Western financing and attract new investment for strategic infrastructure projects. "Colombia officially joins the BRICS New Development Bank. This membership opens new financing opportunities for strategic projects and is a key step toward diversifying alliances and strengthening the country's economy," the Colombian presidency announced Thursday in a post on X. Colombia's membership involves an initial $512 million commitment and makes it the first South American nation to formally join the bank, which is backed by 11 BRICS full members, including China, Russia, India, South Africa and Brazil. Foreign Minister Laura Sarabia welcomed the announcement, saying the move goes beyond financial strategy and reflects broader national goals. "We continue to pave the way for new opportunities for the country," she wrote on X. Beyond access to loans with fewer conditions, the move carries significant symbolic weight. It reflects the Petro administration's interest in redefining Colombia's international role, shifting away from the traditional Washington-Bogotá axis to pursue a more independent path aligned with the Global South. The announcement has sparked both enthusiasm and skepticism among Colombian analysts, who warn of financial risks, geopolitical consequences and the delicate balance Bogotá must maintain with the United States, its primary trading and military partner. The Petro government has defended the move as a pragmatic step amid global economic volatility and the weakening of the traditional multilateral order. Officials also see it as an opportunity to advance strategic projects such as the interoceanic railway -- an ambitious infrastructure initiative aimed at positioning Colombia as a commercial hub between Asia and the Caribbean. Colombia's Foreign Ministry and Finance Ministry officials emphasized that joining the New Development Bank does not signal a break with the Inter-American Development Bank or the International Monetary Fund. "This is about having more options, not replacing allies," Finance Minister Ricardo Bonilla said. Still, reactions in Colombia remain divided. While lawmakers from the ruling coalition praised what they called the country's "financial emancipation," opposition groups and business associations raised concerns about the fiscal burden and reputational risks of aligning with a bloc that includes China and Russia. "Do we want to depend on the yuan or the ruble? What guarantees does a bank dominated by authoritarian regimes offer?" conservative senator and former presidential candidate Enrique Gómez asked. Colombia has long been one of the United States' closest allies in the fight against drug trafficking and in supporting the liberal economic model promoted by Washington. Against that backdrop, closer ties with China have raised tensions. The U.S. State Department has said it will firmly oppose financing for Latin American projects tied to China's Belt and Road Initiative, a global investment strategy backed by Beijing that aims to expand its economic influence through critical infrastructure development around the world. Founded in 2015, the New Development Bank aims to provide financing for infrastructure and sustainable development in emerging economies, with fewer political conditions than the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. To date, it has approved more than $40 billion in funding for 122 infrastructure projects in sectors such as transportation, clean energy and sanitation.
8 hours ago
In Uganda, a tougher bicycle offers hope for better health coverage in rural areas
LIRA, Uganda -- The bicycle parked in Lucy Abalo's compound doesn't belong to her. Any one of the hundreds of people in her village can show up and ask to use it. A man might wish to take his pregnant wife for a checkup. A woman might need transport to pick up HIV medication. An injured child might need a trip to a hospital. 'The goodness about this bike,' Abalo said, is its availability to all. She is one of dozens of 'village doctors' in rural Uganda who recently were supplied with the Buffalo Bicycle, so called because its steel parts are reinforced to perform in areas with bad roads. World Bicycle Relief, a Chicago-based nonprofit, promotes the Buffalo Bicycle in remote parts of Africa. It collaborates with governments, non-governmental groups and others who use the bikes to improve access to health services. In Uganda, an east African country of 45 million people, efforts to market the bicycle have focused on supporting health workers like Abalo, who visits people's homes and reports any issues to authorities. As a community health extension worker, or CHEW, she has gained the trust of villagers, who can knock on her door in emergency situations. She said she helps to look after about 8,000 people in the area. And at least twice a week, she is required to report to a government-run health center about 5 kilometers (3 miles) away and assist with triaging patients. Ugandan health authorities acknowledge that one challenge for CHEWs is transportation, part of a larger burden of poverty that can leave health facilities lacking ambulances or even gas to move them. World Bicycle Relief, operating locally as Buffalo Bicycles Uganda, has collaborated with Ugandan health authorities since 2023 to equip 331 CHEWs in two of the country's 146 districts. One is Lira, 442 kilometers (274 miles) north of the capital, Kampala. Bicycles have long been ubiquitous, and many families tend to have one. Cultural norms in northern Uganda don't prohibit women from riding. While the roads in Lira town are paved, dirt paths lead into the heart of the district where farming is the main economic activity. The Buffalo Bicycle is a recent arrival. Many have never heard of it, or can't afford it. Retailing for roughly $200, it is three times more expensive than the cheapest regular bicycle — otherwise out of reach for many CHEWs, who do not yet earn a salary. The bike's promoters cite its durability in rough terrain, needing fewer trips to the mechanic as a way to save money. The Buffalo Bicycle's heavy-gauge steel frame is so strong that it comes with a five-year warranty, said Amuza Ali, a monitoring officer in Lira for Buffalo Bicycles Uganda. Abalo and others told the AP the Buffalo Bicycle felt uncomfortable to use in the beginning, with a braking system that doesn't permit carefree backpedaling. 'When I climbed on it, it wasn't that easy as I thought,' Abalo said. 'I was like, 'I am trying again to learn how to ride.'' CHEWs using the bicycles reported a 108% increase in households reached each week, and the time to reach health facilities dropped by nearly half, according to a study published in May by World Bicycle Relief. The study shows that 'mobility is not a luxury in healthcare' but a lifeline, CEO Dave Neiswander said in a statement released for the report. Diana Atwine, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Health, has urged the distribution of bicycles to more CHEWs across Uganda, saying front-line health workers save an unknown number of lives each year. Abalo received her Buffalo Bicycle from the health minister last year. One of her neighbors, Babra Akello, said she has used the bicycle at least six times already. The first was for transport to an antenatal checkup. She praised Abalo's willingness to help. The bike has also been used for emergencies. One evening earlier this year, a neighbor's 4-year-old child suffered a deep cut while playing in the dirt. With the child's parents away, Abalo transported the bleeding boy to a facility where he briefly lost consciousness before being revived. 'That bike, not me, saved the life of that child,' Abalo said. 'If that bike hadn't been there, I don't know what would have happened.'
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?
The G7 summit in Alberta, hosted by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has ended with only passing mention of fighting climate change, including a statement on wildfires that is silent on the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is puzzling. Canadians didn't opt for Conservative Pierre Poilievre, considered by some to be an oil and gas industry mouthpiece, in the last federal election. Instead, voters gave Carney's Liberals a minority government. Carney was the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and was behind the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, so some Canadians might have assumed he'd prioritize climate action if he won the election. Instead, Carney has described developing fossil fuel infrastructure as 'pragmatic.' But it's unclear how a country grappling with abysmal air quality due to wildfires fuelled by global warming will benefit from further global fossil fuel development and its related emissions. Read more: Canada is warming faster than most of the globe. Its leaders should be laser-focused on mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuel use to the greatest extent possible, as soon as possible. This decades-long understanding of how to approach climate action has been repeatedly explained by experts and is well known to governments globally. Canada's prime minister was once one of those experts. Carney now has a tremendous opportunity to lead by steering Canada in a clean direction. Canada is at the forefront of clean technology, with numerous business opportunities emerging, particularly in areas like circular economy international trade. These opportunities not only support Canada's commitment to meeting its Paris Agreement targets but also help expand and diversify its global trade. Canada already has exemplar eco-industrial parks — co-operative businesses located on a common property that focus on reducing environmental impact through resource efficiency, waste reduction and sharing resources. Such industrial communities are in Halifax and in Delta, B.C. They represent significant investment opportunities. Vacant urban land could be revitalized and existing industrial parks could boost their economic output and circular trade by building stronger partnerships to share resources, reduce waste and cut emissions. Read more: Canada would benefit economically and environmentally by building on existing expertise and expanding successful sustainability strategies to achieve economic, environmental and social goals. But by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, Canada misses out on opportunities to diversify trade and boost economic competitiveness. Real diversification makes Canada less vulnerable to economic shocks, like the ones caused by the tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump. Fossil fuel reliance increases exposure to global economic risks, but shifting to cleaner products and services reduces climate risks and expands Canada's global trade options. China's economic rise is partly a result of this strategy. That's seemingly why Trump is so fixated on China. China today is a serious competitor to the U.S. after making smart trade and economic decisions and forging its own path, disregarding American pressure to remain a mere follower. Investing in its huge Belt and Road Initiative, China also aligned itself with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It's building diplomatic bridges with many Belt and Road countries in southeast Asia as Trump's America alienates its partners, pulling out of the Paris Agreement and cutting foreign aid. As another one of the America's mistreated partners, Canada was poised to forge its own path under Carney. Instead, Carney is supporting American oil and gas by encouraging Canadian pipeline projects. Canadian oil and gas is a concentrated industry controlled by a wealthy few, primarily Americans. More pipelines would therefore mean more sales of fossil fuels to other countries, with the beneficiaries mostly American. Fossil fuel investments reduce Canada's diversification because the resources used to further these projects could go elsewhere — toward clean diversification. With almost unlimited clean economy options across many sectors, clean diversification would broaden Canada's economic and trade portfolios and reduce American control. Read more: This is International Business 101, and would make the Canadian economy more competitive through innovation, while reducing the country's climate risk. California, often targeted by Trump for its policies, has been a leader in clean innovation, making its economy the envy of the world. Read more: My recent research shows that clear, decisive choices like those made in California will be key to Canada's future success. Canada must make choices aligned with goals — a core principle of strategic management. My research also suggests Canada must restructure its energy industry to focus on renewable energy innovation while reducing fossil fuel reliance. Increased renewable energy innovation, as seen in patent numbers, leads to higher GDP. Contrary to common beliefs, pollution taxes boost the economy in combination with clean innovation. But when the government supports both the fossil fuel industry and clean industries, it hinders Canada's transition to a cleaner future. Do Canadian taxpayers truly want to keep funding an outdated, polluting industry that benefits a wealthy few, or invest in clean industries that boost Canada's economy, create better jobs and protect the environment? To differentiate Canada from the United States, it would make sense to choose the latter. Carney should consider refraining from pushing for the fast-tracking of polluting projects. If he doesn't, Canada will become more uncompetitive and vulnerable, trapped by the fossil fuel industry. Read more: Carney's support for pipelines may have stemmed from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's implicit support for Alberta sovereignty. She made veiled threats to Canada at a critical juncture, when Trump was making repeated assertions about annexing Canada. Alberta didn't vote for Carney. But Canadians who care about mitigating climate change did. Banks that felt pressure to at least recognize sustainable finance during the Joe Biden administration joined Carney's Net-Zero Banking Alliance. But as soon as Trump came to power a second time and walked away from the Paris Agreement, many American banks abandoned the alliance. Canadian banks followed suit, and Carney remarkably missed another moment to show Canadian leadership by stopping their exit. In fact, Carney seems to have abandoned his own organization to appease Trump as the president made multiple 51st state threats. The prime minister had the chance to differentiate Canada and demonstrate his own leadership. Instead, he seems to have easily turned his back on his principles under pressure from Trump. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Deborah de Lange, Toronto Metropolitan University Read more: 'Canada is not for sale' — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights What Liberal Mark Carney's election win in Canada means for Europe How political leaders communicate climate policy should be a defining factor this election Deborah de Lange receives funding from SSHRC and ESRC. She is affiliated with The Liberal Party of Canada and The Writers' Union of Canada.
