Substance use care innovations during COVID-19: barriers and facilitators to the provision of safer supply at a toronto COVID-19 isolation and recovery site.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an urgent need to establish isolation spaces for people experiencing homelessness who were exposed to or had COVID-19. In response, community agencies and the City of Toronto opened COVID-19 isolation and recovery sites (CIRS) in March 2020. We sought to examine the provision of comprehensive substance use services offered to clients on-site to facilitate isolation, particularly the uptake of safer supply prescribing (prescription of pharmaceutical opioids and/or stimulants) as part of a spectrum of comprehensive harm reduction and addiction treatment interventions. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 clients and 25 staff (including peer, harm reduction, nursing and medical team members) from the CIRS in April-July 2021. Iterative and thematic analytic methods were used to identify key themes that emerged in the interview discussions. RESULTS: At the time of implementation of the CIRS, the provision of a safer supply of opioids and stimulants was a novel and somewhat controversial practice. Prescribed safer supply was integrated to address the high risk of overdose among clients needing to isolate due to COVID-19. The impact of responding to on-site overdoses and presence of harm reduction and peer teams helped clinical staff overcome hesitation to prescribing safer supply. Site-specific clinical guidance and substance use specialist consults were crucial tools in building capacity to provide safer supply. Staff members had varied perspectives on what constitutes 'evidence-based' practice in a rapidly changing, crisis situation. CONCLUSION: The urgency involved in intervening during a crisis enabled the adoption of prescribed safer supply, meeting the needs of people who use substances and assisting them to complete isolation periods, while also expanding what constitutes acceptable goals in the care of people who use drugs to include harm reduction approaches.

Can we move beyond vaccine apartheid? Examining the determinants of the COVID-19 vaccine gap.

While global health leaders call disparities in access to COVID-19 vaccines an 'apartheid,' this gap is not the first such disparity. The recurrence of these gaps in low and middle-income countries and especially in Africa, raises questions about their determinants and about the persistent failures of global health institutions to remediate them. We interrogate these determinants and questions by examining: (1) the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines; (2) primary determinants of vaccine access including availability and affordability; (3) factors affecting availability (hoarding, COVAX, and manufacturing capacity); and (4) factors affecting affordability (pricing, intellectual property rights (IPR), the TRIPS waiver and a potential pandemic treaty). We conclude that IPR constrained the affordability and availability of COVID-19 vaccines in ways inadequately addressed by COVAX and a waiver compromise thwarted by political, corporate, and philanthropic interests. While stronger limits to IPR in a pandemic treaty and a reformed International Health Regulations will not resolve structural inequities, they could meaningfully expand LMIC autonomy to protect public health. We urge equity-seeking Global South and North actors to fight for such IPR reforms as small and meaningful steps towards a more equitable global health order. Otherwise, criminally racist 'apartheids' will continue to be the norm when it comes to the distribution of essential health goods during global health emergencies.

Business as Usual? Centering Human Rights to Advance Global COVID-19 Vaccine Equity Through COVAX.

This essay examines the extent to which COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) has been a successful mechanism for global COVID-19 vaccine equity as a component of the human right to health. First, I provide background on COVID-19 vaccine equity and COVAX as part of the Access to COVID-19 Tools ACT-Accelerator. Second, I situate access to COVID-19 vaccines within the context of human rights to exemplify how the international community intended COVAX to advance both health equity and the human right to health. Third, I assess how those intentions have played out in practice due to challenges of vaccine nationalism, lack of transparency, funding shortfalls, unreliable donations, inadequate civil society participation, and inequitable resource allocation. Fourth, I suggest how COVAX might function differently if human rights were centered within its purpose, strategy, and operations. Ultimately, I argue that COVAX is upholding a largely market-oriented approach to making essential medicines accessible and that COVAX would be a more effective mechanism for vaccine equity and global health if it were grounded in human rights.

An Inquiry into State Agreement and Practice on the International Law Status of the Human Right to Medicines.

Global disparities in access to COVID-19 vaccines have brought back into focus questions about whether the right to medicines has assumed any level of binding legality within international law. In this paper, we attempt to answer this question by considering if there is evidence of subsequent state agreement and practice to read the right to medicines into the rights to health and science protected in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We adopt the interpretive framework in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the International Law Commission's 2018 report to analyze the work of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights relevant to medicines, and its relationship to the content and voting in successive resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. We find that these resolutions provide some evidence of state agreement that the rights to health and science, as enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, include access to affordable medicines. Yet the legal implications of this right remain highly contested, particularly when it comes to trade-related intellectual property rights. The negotiation of a pandemic treaty offers possibilities for codifying this right beyond these discursive instances, while political opposition remains likely to continue to undercut this emerging legal norm.