|Seth Berkley, Dagfinn Høybråten, José Manuel Barroso, Anuradha Gupta|
GAVI, officially Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (previously the GAVI Alliance, and before that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) is a public–private global health partnership with the goal of increasing access to immunization in poor countries. In 2016, Gavi channeled more than half of total donor assistance for health, and most donor assistance for immunization, by monetary measure.
Gavi supports the immunization of almost half the world's children. Gavi has helped immunize over 760 million children, preventing over 13 million deaths worldwide, helping increase diphtheria vaccine coverage in supported countries from 59% in 2000 to 81% in 2019, contributing to reducing child mortality by half. It also seeks to improve the economics of vaccines, negotiating bulk prices, supporting price discrimination, and reducing the commercial risks that manufacturers face when selling vaccines to the poor and developing vaccines. It also provides funding to strengthen health systems and train health workers across the developing world, though the effectiveness of its health-system-strengthening programs is disputed.
Along with Global Health Initiatives (GHIs) in general, Gavi was described as innovative, effective, and less bureaucratic than multilateral government institutions like the WHO. Gavi programmes may produce quantified results within an election cycle, which is appealing to parties locked in an election cycle. One author described Gavi's approach to public health as business-oriented and technology-focused, using market-oriented measures, and seeking quantifiable results. Gavi follows a model termed the "Gates approach" or US-type approach. It contrasts with the approach typified by the Alma Ata Declaration, which focuses on the effects of political, social, and cultural systems on health.
Gavi facilitates vaccinations in developing countries by working with donor governments, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, the vaccine industry in both industrialised and developing countries, research and technical agencies, civil society, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other private philanthropists. Gavi has observer status at the World Health Assembly. GAVI has been criticized for giving private donors more unilateral power to decide on global health goals, prioritizing new, expensive vaccines while putting less money and effort into expanding coverage of old, cheap ones, harming local healthcare systems, spending too much on subsidies to large, profitable pharmaceutical companies without reducing the prices of some vaccines, and its conflicts of interest in having vaccine manufacturers on its governance board. Gavi has taken steps to address some of these concerns.
Gavi runs in five-year funding cycles which enables it to negotiate long-term deals with manufacturers, secure in the knowledge that funding will be available.
Following the latest Global Vaccine Summit in June 2020 hosted in the UK, $8.8 billion (USD) was raised for the funding cycle 2021 to 2025; exceeding the target of $7.4 billion. This included $2 billion from the UK, $1.6 billion from the Gates Foundation and $1 billion from Norway.
The UK government stated that this round of funding would mean that 300 million more children in lower-income countries are immunized for diseases including measles, polio and diphtheria by the end of 2025. Additionally, the funding will support health systems to withstand the impact of coronavirus and maintain the infrastructure necessary to roll out a future COVID-19 vaccine on a global scale.
In the period of 2016–2020 over which US$9.3 billion had been received by Gavi, the UK was the largest donor, providing around 25% of total funding, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the US and Norway close behind.
Industrialised countries are GAVI's principal donors, providing approximately three-quarters of the total funding. All donor governments are represented on the Gavi Board through a constituency system (i.e. one donor country will represent several donors in their constituency).
Public-sector workers and academics public health have criticized Gavi, and other global health initiatives (GHIs) with private-sector actors, saying that they have neither the democratic legitimacy nor the capacity to decide on public health agendas. Private donors often find it easier to exert influence through public-private partnerships like Gavi than through the traditional public sector. There is also criticism that staff at GHIs are often recruited directly from elite educational institutions, and have no experience in health care systems, especially those in poorer countries. Some WHO officials have privately criticized Gavi for infringing and weakening the WHO's mandate.
Gavi was created in 2000 as a successor to the Children's Vaccine Initiative, which was launched in 1990. In August 2014, Gavi changed its name from "GAVI Alliance" and rebranded itself with a new logo deliberately reminiscent of UN organization logos, but using green as a mark of difference.
Vaccine development and advance market commitments
Advance Market Commitments (AMCs) aim to overcome market failure by making an advance pledge that if a vaccine for a certain condition is developed, meeting certain specifications, donors will buy a certain number of doses. GAVI seeks to design its AMCs in a way that encourages a competitive market.[third-party source needed]
GAVI has been particularly successful at promoting the uptake of newer vaccines.
- Human Papillomavirus vaccine
- Polio vaccine
- Japanese Encephalitis vaccine
- Meningococcal vaccine (Meningitis A vaccine)
- Measles and rubella vaccine
- Pneumococcal vaccine
- Typhoid vaccine
- Cholera vaccine
- Rotavirus vaccine
- Yellow fever vaccine
- Pentavalent vaccine (Diphteria, tetanus, pertussis, haemophilus influenza vaccine (Type B), Hepatitis B)
- Ebola vaccine
GAVI's main objective is vaccination programs. Gavi has been the main donor funder of vaccination in low and middle income countries.
In 2012, the first Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) "The right shot" report criticized Gavi for focusing on funding expensive new vaccines and neglecting to give children low-cost older ones. "Twenty percent of the world's children aren't even getting the basic vaccines", MSF's vaccine policy adviser said. MSF criticized the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), a WHO global collaboration of which Gavi is listed as a leader, as flawed for failing to help those 20%, which is some 19 million children.
In 2011, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) recommended that Gavi change the ways in which it buy vaccines. They criticized the pneumococcal vaccine Advance Market Commitment, which means that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer get a subsidy as well as a per-unit payment for supplying doses of pneumococcal vaccine, as "corporate welfare that is scandalously expensive to donors and taxpayers" (in return, the companies committed to sell at least 30 million doses annually for ten years).
The Advance Market Commitment had transferred far more money to GSK and Pfizer than the GAVI grants had transferred to low-cost suppliers for technology transfer and product development. MSF said that large pharmaceutical multinationals had been found to put very high markups on prices, and internationally certified vaccine could be made for about 40% less cost by smaller companies in India and China, despite patent-related obstacles. The duopoly allowed price discrimination; apart from charging slightly higher prices for GAVI, it charged unaffordable prices (about ten time the GAVI price) for middle-income countries too rich for GAVI aid. MSF also highlighted the success of the adapted vaccines program, which makes vaccines that are easier to deliver in remote areas (no need for a temperature-controlled supply chain, looser age restrictions, fewer shots, lower prices, etc.). They recommended that GAVI spend more money on adapted vaccines and on fostering competition, and less subsidizing large pharmaceutical companies.
GAVI responded (on an unspecified date) by agreeing with MSF's goals, but regretting that MSF had discussed the issue in public as well as through its own close ties to GAVI. GAVI said that low prices required large, stable, high-volume deals, and "careful consideration and the support of key constituencies".
In January 2015, MSF also called upon GSK and Pfizer to cut the price of the pneumococcal vaccine to US$5 per child in developing countries, a price they estimated as competitive. On January 27, they responded to Pfizer's commitment to reduce prices by 6% to $10 per child. They said that GSK and Pfizer were being paid $21 per child if GAVI subsidies were included, and the change would not greatly increase affordability for mid-wealth countries, those too rich for GAVI help but too poor to afford the vaccine. They said that, as Pfizer had made $16 billion in profits on pneumococcal vaccine in the last four years, a larger price cut would be affordable. In early 2016, they ran the "A fair shot" campaign to pressure GSK and Pfizer to drop prices. Pfizer said that they were already selling the vaccine at "far below" cost, while GSK said that the price enabled them to "just about" cover their costs, and "To discount it further would threaten our ability to supply it to these countries in the long-term".
Bill Gates responded to MSF, saying "I think there is an organisation that's wonderful in every other respect, but every time we raise money to save poor children's lives, they put out a press release that says the price of these things should be zero". He said that criticizing pharmaceutical company pricing deterred them from investing in medicines for the developing world, and said that instead, pharmaceutical companies should be praised for price discrimination: "We get a great price for these things, which is tiered pricing... And that's how we manage to cut childhood death in half". He also advocated improving low-temperature supply chains (a.k.a. cold chains) in developing countries.
In August 2019, MSF asked GAVI to stop giving Advance Market Commitment subsidies to GSK and Pfizer, whom they called a duopoly, and instead buy vaccine from a new third manufacturer, the Serum Institute of India, which offered the vaccine at 2/3 of the price then offered by the two. As the pneumococcal vaccine made up 40% of GAVI's vaccine purchasing costs, a 33% price drop would save GAVI billions (13% of its total vaccine purchasing costs). Pneumonia kills more than a quarter of children dying before the age of five, almost a million children each year. MSF said that GSK and Pfizer's pricing was exploitative and had left millions of children who could have been protected vulnerable. In December 2019, they reiterated this request, pointing out that the GSK/Pfizer pneumococcal vaccine often costs US$80 in middle-income countries too rich for GAVI support.
In January 2020, MSF repeated the appeal for Gavi to bulk-buy the cheaper pneumococcal vaccine and vaccinate more of the 55 million children who are not vaccinated with it. They also appealed to the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the Gates Foundation, and said that Gavi could have done more to lower vaccine prices.
Health systems strengthening debate
In the 20-naughts, Gavi had intense internal debate about its role in vaccinations and in health systems strengthening (HSS). This was part of a broader discussion in healthcare about "vertical" approaches (often targeting specific diseases or behaviours) and "horizontal" ones, targeting broad programs such as primary care. At GAVI, some argued that vaccination could not be effectively carried out and sustained without strengthening healthcare, citing experiences in Gavi's vaccination programmes, where availability of staff, training, transport, and funds had hindered vaccination and reporting of vaccination coverage and stocks. There were also worries that Gavi was undermining and paralyzing health care systems. Others argued that HSS was a distraction from Gavi's single-minded focus on vaccines, and HSS was a nebulous concept that could not be defined and quantified.
Major donors Norway and Britain supported HSS; USAID and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (and Bill Gates personally) opposed it. The majority of vaccine experts tended to favour technological rather than HSS-based approaches. Pharmaceutical industry representatives were supportive of HSS, possibly because they saw it as key to sustainable markets for their products. In 2005, a narrow vote brought Gavi to endorse an HSS goal. Up to a quarter of Gavi's funding was dedicated to "strengthening the capacity of integrated health systems to deliver immunisation", in practice it's been around 10%. After 2010, this funding went through a joint-venture Health Systems Funding Platform. Gavi's funding for this platform was conditional on the platform meeting vaccine coverage goals.
As of the mid-2010s, few in Gavi were working on HSS, most of the former pro-HSS people had left, and some at Gavi dismissed HSS as PR to gain support from pro-HSS donors and counter criticisms that Gavi was harming healthcare systems. Such criticisms were generally not a topic that GAVI engaged with internally; the lack of internal engagement with the issue has been criticized. The disagreements were fairly intense; when Bill Gates came to visit GAVI headquarters, employees would hide the HSS-related posters so that he would not be reminded of this aspect of GAVI's work. Julian Lob-Levitt, who was Gavi's CEO between 2004 and 2010, was rumoured to have left over conflicts around his support for health system strengthening. Seth Berkley has been the CEO of Gavi since 2011, as of 2020[update].
It has been argued that GAVI's HSS spending in the early 2010s went to selective, disease-specific interventions repackaged as HSS. GAVI's HSS support at this time tended to focus on immunisation strengthening support, especially the building of cold chains. GAVI measured HSS using vaccination coverage as the sole indicator. It set the reporting indicators which were required of recipients of its funding; countries were not allowed to use similar indicators they already collected; this has been criticized for conferring a heavy accounting burden and diverting attention from indigenous goals. National government representatives did sit on the board, but had little influence; one European representative described the environment in the mid-2010s as "highly intimidating".
A 2016 funding-allocation analysis of a sample of GAVI grants found that just over half the money went to purchasing drugs, equipment, supplies, and facilities (and 3% on bonuses and incentive pay,). These are short-term funding activities which the WHO does not consider HSS. The proportions were higher in less-developed healthcare systems. There was no spending on operational research, improving use of existing resources, or developing national drug and vaccine policies. In some grants, HSS funds were mostly spent on day-to-day operational costs, with no exit plan for the funding. GAVI subsequently (before 2018) shifted HSS aid to focus more on sustainability and the principles of the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness.
In 2011 Gavi added "shape the market for vaccines and other immunisation supplies" to its strategic goals.
GAVI spent 15 years (2005–2020) with a program for shaping the pentavalent vaccine market to be more stable and competitive. The vaccine price fell with increased competition, and price discrimination declined. Whether Gavi met quantitative goals will be assessed in 2020.[third-party source needed]
The number of manufacturers making certified pentavalent vaccine increased, making the market more competitive. Graph by Gavi; manufacturers are not named.[clarification needed]
All pentavalent vaccine prices fell and price discrimination almost vanished. Graph by Gavi; non-UNICEF prices not shown
CEO Seth Berkley commented that the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic had started off remarkably well. However he cautioned that there was a need for a co-ordination of production at a global level. He advocated that the pandemic needed a global response whereby the best global facilities for separate parts of the processes should then be integrated into a global process. He said he hoped that the G20 countries should work together with a budget of tens of billions of dollars, and that individual countries should be prepared for finished vaccines to be allocated according to greatest need.
In September 2020, Gavi was announced as one of the organisations leading the COVAX vaccine allocation plan, created to ensure that any new COVID-19 vaccine would be shared equally between the world's richest and poorest countries.The following month, Gavi announced the approval of up to $150 million to help 92 low- and middle-income countries prepare for the delivery of future COVID-19 vaccines, including technical assistance and cold chain equipment.Later that month, Gavi backed Team Halo, a TikTok centered campaign from scientists in UK, US, South Africa, India and Brazil aimed at improving understanding of Coronavirus vaccine research.In January 2021, Seth Berkley announced that Gavi hoped to deliver 145 to 150 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the first quarter of 2021 and 500 million doses in the second quarter, and then 1.5 billion in the second half of the year.
Gavi was awarded the 2019 Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award for "providing sustained access to childhood vaccines around the globe, thus saving millions of lives, and for highlighting the power of immunization to prevent disease".Gavi was nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian MP Carl-Erik Grimstad.
- Ravelo, Jenny Lei (10 November 2014). "The evolution of global health's 'best-kept secret'". Devex. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017. Retrieved 25 January 2017.
- "GAVI – The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations". WHO. Archived from the original on 24 July 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
- Boseley, Sarah (17 November 2011). "Green light from Gavi for cervical cancer vaccine". Guardian. Archived from the original on 14 April 2019. Retrieved 29 April 2014.
- Ikilezi, Gloria; Augusto, Orvalho J.; Dieleman, Joseph L.; Sherr, Kenneth; Lim, Stephen S. (2020). "Effect of donor funding for immunization from Gavi and other development assistance channels on vaccine coverage: Evidence from 120 low and middle income recipient countries". Vaccine. sciencedirect.com. 38 (3): 588–596. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.057. PMID 31679863.
- Jaupart, Pascal; Dipple, Lizzie; Dercon, Stefan (2019). "Has Gavi lived up to its promise? Quasi-experimental evidence on country immunisation rates and child mortality" (PDF). The British Medical Journal. 4 (6): e001789. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001789. PMC 6936423. PMID 31908857. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 October 2020. Retrieved 4 October 2020.
- Tsai, Feng-Jen; Lee, Howard; Fan, Victoria Y. (2016). "Perspective and investments in health system strengthening of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance: a content analysis of health system strengthening-specific funding". International Health. 8 (4): 246–252. doi:10.1093/inthealth/ihv063. PMC 6281386. PMID 26612851.
- Storeng, Katerini T. (14 September 2014). "The GAVI Alliance and the 'Gates approach' to health system strengthening". Global Public Health. 9 (8): 865–879. doi:10.1080/17441692.2014.940362. PMC 4166931. PMID 25156323.
- "GAVI Alliance". WHO. Archived from the original on 11 March 2015. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
- "Supplies and Logistics – GAVI". UNICEF. 9 April 2007. Archived from the original on 16 March 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
- "The World Bank's Partnership with the Gavi Alliance". World Bank Group. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
- "What We Do -VACCINE DELIVERY- Strategy Overview". Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
- Paulson, Tom (15 May 2012). "Doctors Without Borders criticizes Gates-backed global vaccine strategy". Humanosphere. Archived from the original on 3 November 2021. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "GAVI money welcome but could it be more wisely spent?". Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International. 14 June 2011. Archived from the original on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "Pneumococcal Vaccine is Launched in Africa, But Are Donors Getting a Fair Deal from Companies?". Doctors Without Borders – USA. Archived from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "Annual Contributions and Proceeds". Gavi. Archived from the original on 18 March 2022. Retrieved 26 February 2022. Annual Contributions and Proceeds 31 March 2021 Archived 18 November 2021 at the Wayback Machine
- "Funding". www.gavi.org. Archived from the original on 23 September 2020. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
- "Bill Gates-backed vaccine alliance raises $8.8 billion from world leaders and businesses". cnbc.com. 4 June 2020. Archived from the original on 18 September 2020. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
- "The Global Vaccine Summit, hosted by the UK, raises US$ 8.8 billion for immunisation". gov.uk. Archived from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
- "Current Period 2016–2020". www.gavi.org. 12 March 2021. Archived from the original on 19 April 2021. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
- "BOARD AND BOARD COMMITTEE OPERATING PROCEDURES" (PDF). www.gavi.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 January 2021. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
- "Gavi – About". gavi.org. GAVI. Archived from the original on 29 January 2017. Retrieved 24 October 2017.
- "Pneumococcal AMC GAVI webpage" Archived 7 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- "Vaccine support". Archived from the original on 29 June 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
- "Global vaccine plan draws criticism". Nature News Blog. Archived from the original on 6 May 2021. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
- "Gavi must stop giving millions in subsidies to Pfizer and GSK for pneumococcal vaccine". Doctors Without Borders – USA. 3 December 2019. Archived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "GAVI responds to MSF campaign". www.gavi.org. Archived from the original on 13 April 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "Access: MSF calls on GSK and Pfizer to slash pneumo vaccine price to $5 per child for poor countries ahead of donor meeting". Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International. 20 January 2015. Archived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "MSF responds to Pfizer announcement of pneumococcal vaccine price reduction". Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International. 27 January 2015. Archived from the original on 13 April 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- Boseley, Sarah (26 January 2015). "Vaccine price cut pledge not enough, critics tell Pfizer". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 September 2019. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "A fair shot campaign". A fair shot. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International. Archived from the original on 17 June 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- Boseley, Sarah; editor, health (20 January 2015). "Pharmaceutical companies told to slash price of pneumococcal disease vaccine". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 June 2019. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- Boseley, Sarah (27 January 2015). "Bill Gates dismisses criticism of high prices for vaccines". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 29 May 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- one-third of 40% is 13.3333...%
- "Gavi should stop awarding special funds to Pfizer and GSK for pneumonia vaccine". MSF. 26 August 2019. Archived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "Gavi must stop giving millions in subsidies to Pfizer and GSK for pneumonia vaccine". Doctors Without Borders - USA. 3 December 2019. Archived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "MSF urges Gavi to work for more children to a get new, more affordable pneumonia vaccine". MSF. 21 January 2020. Archived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "Gavi must work to ensure more children get new, more affordable pneumonia vaccine". Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International. 21 January 2020. Archived from the original on 22 June 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "The health systems goal (Phase 3)". Archived from the original on 14 March 2022. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "BACK TO GAVI SECRETARIAT Dr Seth Berkley". www.gavi.org. GAVI. Archived from the original on 21 June 2020. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
- Of 22% on Human resources development/Performance management (fig2), 15.8% was spent on bonuses
- Mimche, Honoré; Squires, Ellen; Miangotar, Yodé; Mokdad, Ali; El Bcheraoui, Charbel (2018). "Resource Allocation Strategies to Increase the Efficiency and Sustainability of Gavi's Health System Strengthening Grants". The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 37 (5): 407–412. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001848. PMC 5916462. PMID 29278610.
- Malhame, Melissa; Baker, Edward; Gandhi, Gian; Jones, Andrew; Kalpaxis, Philipp; Iqbal, Robyn; Momeni, Yalda; Nguyen, Aurelia (18 July 2019). "Shaping markets to benefit global health – A 15-year history and lessons learned from the pentavalent vaccine market". Vaccine: X. 2: 100033. doi:10.1016/j.jvacx.2019.100033. PMC 6668221. PMID 31384748.
- Seth Berkley: interview BBC Radio 4 8:46 am 11 April 2020
- "'Landmark moment': 156 countries agree to Covid vaccine allocation deal". theguardian.com. 21 September 2020. Archived from the original on 3 October 2020. Retrieved 4 October 2020.
- "GAVI providing $150 million to poorer countries to prepare for COVID-19 vaccines". reuters.com. October 2020. Archived from the original on 9 October 2020. Retrieved 4 October 2020.
- "Coronavirus: Scientists using TikTok to teach about vaccine". bbc.co.uk. Archived from the original on 30 October 2020. Retrieved 26 October 2020.
- "Covax scheme: 150m Covid-19 vaccine doses could be given to nations in Q1". Straits Times. Singapore. 27 March 2021. Archived from the original on 6 April 2022. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
- "2019 Lasker~Bloomberg Public Service Award Providing sustained access to childhood vaccines around the globe". laskerfoundation.org. Lasker Foundation. Archived from the original on 9 October 2020. Retrieved 4 October 2020.
- "Flere fredsprisforslag før fristen gikk ut". Aftenposten. Norwegian News Agency. 31 January 2021. Archived from the original on 1 February 2021. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
- "Hektisk nomineringsaktivitet før fredsprisfrist". Dagsavisen. 31 January 2021. Archived from the original on 31 January 2021. Retrieved 26 February 2022.