The Lancet quotes CGD vice president for programs and operations, and senior fellow Ruth Levine on investments in vaccines for developing countries.
From the article:
"Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health interventions, and puts a relatively low burden on public-health-sector budgets. “Despite this, many countries have come to depend on donor resources to support their immunisation programmes, particularly when introducing important newer vaccines such as Hib, rotavirus vaccines, and hepatitis B”, said Ruth Levine of the Center for Global Development (Washington DC, USA). An ongoing and increasing stream of funding is vital for both routine childhood vaccination and immunisation campaigns and funding needs to be deployed carefully. “The extra money already raised through IFFIm has been channelled to various non-country-specific programmes such as the creation of a polio and yellow fever vaccine stockpile, measles mortality reduction, and maternal/neonatal tetanus elimination campaigns”, reported Thomas. Specific investment cases indicated that these were highly cost-effective programmes that would have a significant health impact. Some of the stockpile funds were reallocated to support funding gaps in the operational cost of campaigns within the polio eradication programme, Thomas told TLID.
Beutels stresses that the impact of the recent funding boost has already been substantial. “Not only has it been possible to procure and deliver more vaccinations, but health systems have been strengthened and the safety of injections has been improved, both of which are of major importance to the safe and efficient delivery of current and future vaccines”, he said. Levine agrees, she regards GAVI as one of the pioneers in using vertical or intervention-specific funding to strengthen core health-system functions, based on proposals from recipient governments.
Maya Vijayaraghavan, an economist in the Global Immunisation Division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA) views the current IFFIm investment opportunities as “test cases whose performance will determine donor support for similar bonds in the future”. There is insufficient information on their popularity and their impact on programme performance, she thinks, to determine whether they could become a staple of fundraising for vaccination programmes. Levine is also cautious about making predictions, but she is hopeful that institutional and individual investors will “continue to see the merits of combining financial returns with social value”. Vijayaraghavan concurs, “with likely declines in charitable giving during tough economic times, vaccine bonds do double duty, providing philanthropic funding and are a particularly attractive option for both retail and institutional investors”."
Read the article (subscription required)