Vaccines save lives but is GAVI getting value for money? Guest post from Max Lawson

replenishment conference for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) kicks off in London.  The last few gavi_logoweeks have seen significant campaigning by a broad range of organisations to secure more money for GAVI, which is running out of cash, with the requisite NGO brinksmanship being cranked up – ‘four hours to save four million lives’ according to Save the Children this week.   GAVI is an excellent initiative, which has successfully vaccinated millions of children in the poorest countries, and saved 5 million lives as a result. But there is a long way to go – one in five children still gets no vaccine at all. Oxfam fully supports GAVI getting the money it needs from rich nations to continue and expand this sterling work.   But (there’s always a but). DFID is one of GAVI’s major sponsors, and in its recent multilateral aid review, GAVI scored well.  However, DFID also said that GAVI should be doing more to drive down the prices it pays for vaccines. We agree. One of the reasons GAVI is running out of money is because it has paid too much for them. Scaling up HIV/AIDS treatment is not just about raising money but also ensuring, through competition, the lowest possible price for anti-retroviral medicines. vaccination 2Oxfam and Medecins Sans Frontieres have been pressing GAVI to take three steps to address this problem: first, full transparency about the prices GAVI pays; second, forceful action by GAVI to use competition to get a better deal; third, all pharmaceutical companies should step down from the GAVI Board because of their clear conflict of interest. There has been some great progress in recent weeks.  UNICEF is the primary procurer of vaccines for GAVI, and has recently published all of the prices it has historically paid.  This transparency will now be a prerequisite for all future contracts.  The move is already doing its job in adding weight to the other two issues of prices and governance.  According to the Wall St Journal the pricing data revealed significant differences. For one common paediatric vaccine used to prevent several diseases including hepatitis B, Serum Institute of India last year charged UNICEF 40% less per dose than Crucell, a Dutch company owned by Johnson and Johnson.  With three doses per child, and millions to immunise, such price differentials really matter. Last week, partly in response to this more robust approach, and with big contracts with UNICEF in the offing, there were a series of welcome announcements by several vaccine manufacturers voluntarily lowering their vaccine prices.  Yet we can’t rely on these ad hoc moves by companies.  Systematic action by GAVI to drive down prices is also required. GAVI is publishing a new ‘market shaping’ strategy in late June, for consultation and then agreement by the Board in the Autumn, a real opportunity for it to shift up a gear.  Perhaps the thorniest issue is that of governance. There are two seats for Pharmaceutical companies on the GAVI board.  Crucell, which earns up to 60% of its income from GAVI contracts (like the hep B vaccine mentioned earlier), is replacing GSK on the board this July.  Both GSK and Crucell have fiercely resisted the moves towards price transparency, according to the FT. Given the 40% differential such resistance is hardly surprising. An element of conflict of interest is commonplace on many boards, and normal practice is for that board member to absent themselves Vaccinationfor that particular decision.  The problem here is that it is hard to think of any significant decision taken by the GAVI board that would not have a direct impact upon the bottom line of vaccine suppliers to the alliance.  Oxfam fully recognises the value of GAVI working closely with the pharmaceutical industry, but we do not believe that the best interests of the millions requiring vaccinations are best served with this continued clear conflict of interest.  The new Chair of the Board and the new Chief Executive have both said they want to tackle the governance issue, and we urge them to do so. With donor budgets squeezed ever more it is vital we get maximum value for money – that means as many kids as possible vaccinated per aid dollar. GAVI is a great initiative, and must be fully supported by donors today, but in return for clear steps to ensure that it is paying the lowest possible prices for vaccines. Max Lawson is Head of Development Finance and Public Services for Oxfam GB Update: Very interesting response from Owen Barder, who thinks we are wrong on this]]>

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


8 Responses to “Vaccines save lives but is GAVI getting value for money? Guest post from Max Lawson”
  1. Suddenly development shifts from improving structuralchange to saving lives. I’m all for vaccination of children, but why just one organisation? How bout the other aid related organisations? And how about improving the whole country so that they themselves can provide health services?

  2. craig burgess

    Great post.
    Thanks and congratulations to GAVI’s hard core advocacy and fund raising teams for increasing resources made available for children.
    Shaping markets is crucial, but so is dealing with ethics of vaccine promotion. Three examples (without judgement) of manufacturers: donating vaccines to countries to create long term demand; influencing key decision makers in-country with ‘rewards’; stimulating creation of NGOs to lobby (eg. royal famiies) to influence MoHs. All this happens and is regarded as acceptable marketing. However, this may not be getting the best value for aid resources (or the most effective interventions that reduce mortality and morbidity the most) or strengthen informed decision making based on national priorities.
    Delivering vaccines to those who need them most requires strong health systems, based on national priorities delivered in primary healthcare contexts. Will GAVI spend anything from its new ‘war chest’ to support equitable delivery of primary healthcare interventions or strengthen its ties with IHP+ or PMNCH? Or will GAVI remain soley focussed on ‘upstream’ market shaping for new vaccine industry dynamics, without due regard for its real customers (women and children in developing countries) who rely on equitable ‘downstream’ delivery issues. Watch this space…..

  3. Mindano Iha

    In developing countries many millions of people suffer from one or more diseases and have compromised immune systems.
    Vaccines should never be given to people who are ill and have compromised immune systems as they may become even more ill.
    Invariably it has been observed that infectious diseases were on the decline before vaccine programs were introduced.
    The best vaccines to give people in the developing world are clean water, satisfactory nutrition and shelter.

  4. Sophia Weigang

    Agree with you Mindano Iha.To say this in public though,usually renders us social outcasts.But the truth shall set us free.All the best,Mindano.

  5. Barbara Hall

    Agreed, Mindano and Sophia. Thank you for your courageous posts. I have stopped contributing to the large charities that promote vaccination instead of genuine care. As Mindanao said, children need clean water, food and shelter – not the damaged immune systems caused by vaccine adjuvants (now usually aluminium). Please read up on this if you don’t know the details.