Financing pandemic prevention, preparedness and response: lessons learned and perspectives for future.

BACKGROUND: The attainment of global health security goals and universal health coverage will remain a mirage unless African health systems are adequately funded to improve resilience to public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the global inequity in accessing medical countermeasures, leaving African countries far behind. As we anticipate the next pandemic, improving investments in health systems to adequately finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR) promptly, ensuring equity and access to medical countermeasures, is crucial. In this article, we analyze the African and global pandemic financing initiatives and put ways forward for policymakers and the global health community to consider. METHODS: This article is based on a rapid literature review and desk review of various PPPR financing mechanisms in Africa and globally. Consultation of leaders and experts in the area and scrutinization of various related meeting reports and decisions have been carried out. MAIN TEXT: The African Union (AU) has demonstrated various innovative financing mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of public health emergencies in the continent. To improve equal access to the COVID-19 medical countermeasures, the AU launched Africa Medical Supplies Platform (AMSP) and Africa Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). These financing initiatives were instrumental in mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 and their lessons can be capitalized as we make efforts for PPPR. The COVID-19 Response Fund, subsequently converted into the African Epidemics Fund (AEF), is another innovative financing mechanism to ensure sustainable and self-reliant PPPR efforts. The global initiatives for financing PPPR include the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) and the Pandemic Fund. The PEF was criticized for its inadequacy in building resilient health systems, primarily because the fund ignored the prevention and preparedness items. The Pandemic Fund is also being criticized for its suboptimal emphasis on the response aspect of the pandemic and non-inclusive governance structure. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure optimal financing for PPPR, we call upon the global health community and decision-makers to focus on the harmonization of financing efforts for PPPR, make regional financing mechanisms central to global PPPR financing efforts, and ensure the inclusivity of international finance governance systems.

Progress Update: Palliative Care Development Between 2017 and 2020 in Five African Countries.

CONTEXT: This article provides a progress update on the development of palliative care in five countries in Africa-Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda-between 2017 and 2021, and explores the role of palliative care advocates and the Open Society Foundations in this process. OBJECTIVES: To provide a progress update on the development of palliative care in Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda between 2017 and 2021 and to examine the impact of twenty years of Open Society Foundations support for palliative care in the region on the integration of palliative care into publicly funded health systems. METHODS: In the mid-2000s, palliative care pioneers in these five countries, supported by Open Society Foundations, began to train health care providers and engage policy makers to ensure that people with life-limiting illnesses and their families had access to appropriate services and essential medicines. In the late 2010s, it embraced an approach that mixed strategic communications and advocacy for inclusion of palliative care into universal health coverage with technical assistance. RESULTS: By the mid-2010s, a vibrant palliative care community existed that worked closely with governments to develop palliative care policies, train providers, and ensure access to morphine. By 2021, Kenya and Rwanda had made significant progress scaling up palliative care services as part of the public health care system, and Uganda's government had instructed public hospitals to start providing these services. In South Africa and Tanzania, governments had yet to commit to publicly funded palliative care services. CONCLUSION: The experiences in these countries suggest that mixing advocacy, communications, and technical assistance can lead to substantial progress for patient access although full inclusion in universal health coverage remained uncertain in all but Rwanda.

Decolonizing drug policy.

This paper reviews evidence of how drug control has been used to uphold colonial power structures in select countries. It demonstrates the racist and xenophobic impact of drug control policy and proposes a path to move beyond oppressive systems and structures. The 'colonization of drug control' refers to the use of drug control by states in Europe and America to advance and sustain the systematic exploitation of people, land and resources and the racialized hierarchies, which were established under colonial control and continue to dominate today. Globally, Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples are disproportionately targeted for drug law enforcement and face discrimination across the criminal system. These communities face higher arrest, prosecution and incarceration rates for drug offenses than other communities, such as majority populations, despite similar rates of drug use and selling among (and between) different races. Current drug policies have contributed to an increase in drug-related deaths, overdoses and sustained transnational criminal enterprises at the expense of the lives of people who use drugs, their families and greater society. This review provides further evidence of the need to reform the current system. It outlines a three-pillared approach to rebuilding drug policy in a way that supports health, dignity and human rights, consisting of: (1) the decriminalization of drugs and their use; (2) an end to the mass incarceration of people who use drugs; (3) the redirection of funding away from ineffective and punitive drug control and toward health and social programs.