There was a jubilant note from an Oxfam lobbyist today over at the e drug listserv, rejoicing at the news that the Global Fund will no longer take "in kind" donations of medicines. The Oxfamista claims that the "the decision was based on solid evidence that developing countries did not want donations", based mainly on the idea that donations would undermine competition in local drug markets.
Based on its track-record, one can see why the Global Fund doesn't like donations. As we know, the Fund has often procured drugs that fall short of even its own lax quality standards. Donated drugs tend to be of more verifiable quality, thereby exposing this double standard. In particular, donated drugs lessen the need to import untested copy drugs from India.
There is also the issue of UNITAID, of which the Global Fund is a supporter. Since UNITAID is a main financier of drug products, donated drugs eliminate the commission that WHO receives from groups like the Clinton Foundation and Medecins Sans Frontiers who procure drugs.
In other words, donated drugs are a threat to the Fund's entire modus operandum.
Instead of simply rejecting donated drugs, how about this as a solution. Countries could forward their needs for donated drugs (other than ARVs) to the Global Fund, which would then act as a clearinghouse to find a company willing to make a donation. When a match is made, the Fund would step away and let the transaction proceed between the company and the country.
Comments