[e-drug] Can we document experiences with PEPFAR please?

E-DRUG: Can we document experiences with PEPFAR please?
-------------------------------------------------------

Dear colleagues,

EPN recently gave out a statement on PEPFAR (below) expressed following the initial experiences with our members on the ground. We would like solicite a sharing of experiences from those involved in PEPFAR and to have views of those who do not agree with our concerns. Such a debate would be useful for those still in the preparation to join PEPFAR. I think this topic is likely to get more attention as more countries enter implementation stage and when the "supply chain management system" fate is known! So the earlier we can point out issues, the better.

Thanks a lot.

Sincerely,

Eva Ombaka

-------

A Statement of the Ecumenical Pharmaceutical Network (EPN) on the
US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

Moshi, Tanzania, October 7th, 2004

The Ecumenical Pharmaceutical Network (EPN), comprised of Christian Health Associations and hospitals, non-profit drug supply organisations and church related development agencies, from 22 countries attending our Annual General Meeting held from 5th - 7th October 2004 in Moshi, Tanzania issues this statement on the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

We recognise and acknowledge that scaling up medical assistance and the care of the men, women and children in our communities who are infected and affected by the scourge of HIV/AIDS, must continue. Therefore, we welcome the initiative and the goals of the US emergency response to provide much needed resources for HIV/AIDS care and support; increase the number of patients under treatment; and, contribute towards the improvement of infrastructure required to fight HIV/AIDS. This gives hope for people living with HIV/AIDS.

However, as a network of health care service providers, we express our deep concern over some aspects of PEPFAR which have been identified as generally applicable, but to varying degrees in individual beneficiary countries:

1. PEPFAR's insistence on FDA approval for all medicines purchased and the 'buy American' requirement for medicines other than ARVs, causes needless delay in making life-saving drugs available and may be inconsistent with national treatment protocols.

2. PEPFAR's overwhelming preference for brand-name drugs and the barriers to the use of more affordable generic ARVs and drugs for opportunistic infections raise four major concerns:

a. It introduces a situation where patients are given different brands of the same drug thus creating a multi-cadre patient system in an institution, leading not only to misunderstandings but also a lot of additional work for an already overstretched health staff.

b. It will be difficult for the institutions to continue providing the same treatment at the end of the PEPFAR programme.

c. Using drugs approved only by the FDA may kill the local industries and threaten the sustainability of the already existing drug supply chains. This is particularly true of drugs against opportunistic infections, which are produced locally at affordable prices.

d. Use of expensive branded products, where equally good but cheaper alternatives are available, is not a cost effective use of resources.

3. In some cases, PEPFAR disregards national drug regulations and local supply chain management systems, which could damage national health systems, especially the pharmaceutical sector.

4. Treatment requires a lifetime commitment, yet there is currently no long-term strategy to provide a continuance of care at the end of the programme. The high level of donor control and little or no country or local ownership further undermines the sustainability of health care and other services.

5. In its current form, the implementation of PEPFAR promotes extensive use of US skills and capacities (personnel and institutions) to the detriment of available local expertise with greater understanding of the issues in their local contexts.

6. There is excessive delay caused by the inherent bureaucracy and conflicting operational rules and regulations. Cumbersome and time consuming documentation requirements; complicated procurement procedures for drugs and other needed items and restrictive expenditure regulations, frustrate and undermine the efforts of institutions trying to implement PEPFAR.

7. The implementation of PEPFAR is predominantly unilateral, undermining other international efforts such as the '3 ones' (one co-ordination, one strategy and one monitoring/evaluation) and the UN Prequalification Project managed by WHO.

In light of the above, we make the following recommendations:

a. PEPFAR should remove the restrictions of its funds to purchase only medicines approved by the FDA and the 'buy American' clause and instead allow the purchase of nationally approved medicines, generics or brand-name drugs, and antiretrovirals pre-qualified by the WHO.

b. PEPFAR should address fears of local drug management and supply institutions that they will be harmed by PEPFAR, and commit to strengthen and improve local structures and systems.

c. PEPFAR should hold extensive consultations with local partners in all areas of the programmes including policy formulation, planning, design, preparation of terms of reference and actual project implementation.

d. PEPFAR should regularly meet with community constituted advisory and oversight bodies comprised of people living with HIV/AIDS, FBO's involved in medical delivery, and health care experts among others.

e. Immediate discussions should start between PEPFAR, other donors, governments and implementing partners on the sustainability of services beyond 2008.

f. PEPFAR should actively identify and involve local experts resident in the partner countries for the effective implementation of activities.

g. PEPFAR should dialogue with local implementing partners with a view of recognising and accepting available and relevant local data or data collection systems and the simplification of documentation requirements.

h. PEPFAR should co-ordinate more effectively with existing international HIV/AIDS programmes including the Global Fund and the WHO '3 x 5' to ease implementation and avoid duplication at local level.

We the members of EPN, in the spirit of goodwill and solidarity, further affirm that the fight against HIV/AIDS deserves concerted effort from all partners to ensure sustainability, effective use of resources, expanded local capacity, empowerment of people living with HIV/AIDS and provision of treatment for as many people as possible. In view of the above, we commit ourselves to play our part in making sure that the PEPFAR programme is implemented to the best interest of those served, the implementing partners and the funding agency.

This statement has been signed on behalf of Ecumenical Pharmaceutical Network.

Mr. Albert Petersen Dr. Eva M A Ombaka
Chair EPN Board Coordinator EPN

Contact address: epn@wananchi.com

E-DRUG: Can we document experiences with PEPFAR please? (2)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

The submission of EPN, Nairobi is incisive and
complete. I have always been of the opinion that much
as we appreciate the support given to countries with
poorly-managed resource by the not more
resource-endowed, but better-managed resources, the
intentions of such "assistance" are usually less than
altruistic. Any wonder why some progressive-minded
African leaders are begining to question the dubious
debt owed to these countries who are probably only
lucky to have better managers of their human and
material resources.

The significant part of so-called grants/aids given to
developing countries, especially ended up being used
to pay the Experts from these countries, as if they
are all mediocres in these developing settings,
service industries or professionals from these
countries. Much as one conceed that National interests
is important, these shoulc not be pursued at the
expense of interests of the supposed beneficiaries of
assistance. These countries should also roll up their
sleeves and take charge of their destinies rather than
being perpetual receivers of hand-outs often with
strings attached.

Sincerely

K.B Yusuff
Dept of Clinical Pharmacy
Faculty of Pharmacy
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
yusuffkby@yahoo.co.uk

E-DRUG: Can we document experiences with PEPFAR please? (4)
-----------------------------------------------------------

I am impressed by the statement and EPN's willingness to take a strong stance.

Recognising that as a consultant I may be part of the problem, I would be interested to hear viable solutions to the skills and capacities point EPN has raised: "In its current form, the implementation of PEPFAR promotes extensive use of US skills and capacities (personnel and institutions) to the detriment of available local expertise with greater understanding of the issues in their local contexts."

My understanding is that most developing countries have realised that they do not have the personnel needed to manage comprehensive HIV/AIDS programmes. Training up doctors and other personnel will take years, while the demand for ARVs is now.

In this light, EPN's stance that "PEPFAR should actively identify and involve local experts resident in the partner countries for the effective implementation of activities" seems a little over-simplified. What should PEPFAR or anyone else do when there are insufficient numbers of doctors, nurses and managers to implement the programmes?

Elizabeth Gardiner
International Health Consultant
London
UK
egardiner.sln2003@london.edu

E-DRUG: Can we document experiences with PEPFAR please? (5)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear E-druggers

In response to Elizabeth Gardiner's message, I think the point EPN is
making is that local experts are being ignored by PEPFAR, which has failed
to use their expertise to avoid mistakes in implementation.

Those who cope daily with the difficult task of setting up sustainable and
appropriate drug supply systems for church hospitals and clinics in Africa
- (many of whom helped to draft the statement) - need to be involved as
equal partners. This has not happened. Instead PEPFAR is adding to their
difficulties by imposing an extra and heavy burden of bureaucracy, and in
the other ways itemised in the statement.

Elizabeth says that "developing countries have realised that they do not
have the personnel needed to manage comprehensive HIV/AIDS
programmes''. But Africa's pool of health professionals is presently
being plundered at an unprecedented rate by rich countries: the outward
flow of trained doctors, nurses, pharmacists and social workers contributes
to weak health services, and makes it essential that experienced and
knowledgeable local experts are respected and involved in shaping PEPFAR to
effectively fill African needs.

Philippa Saunders
Essential Drugs Project
77 Lee Road
Blackheath
London SE3 9EN
UK
tel/fax 44 (0)20 8318 1419
email edp@gn.apc.org

E-DRUG: Can we document experiences with PEPFAR please? (6)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Just to add on to Philippa's comments: USAID is currently prohibited
from giving money directly into a national government's kitty, as UK
has, to increase wages and recruit health care workers. This is one
of many policies that should be changed if PEPFAR is to be accurate
in defining itself as a flexible program that is "fighting AIDS
differently" (as the head of the program, Randall Tobias, purports).

What the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator describes as
innovative strategies in the PEPFAR Interim Report issued to U.S.
Congress in August 2004 to address the shortage of health care
workers are instead incredibly short-sighted and simplistic: U.S.
volunteers and "twinning" with U.S.-based groups.

A true effort to engage and employ indigenous workers with local
expertise is preferable. USAID country officials, questioned by the
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent auditing
arm of Congress, remarked that a system of U.S. medical workers
volunteering for short stints in PEPFAR focus countries would be more
trouble than its worth.

Aside from addressing the healthcare worker shortfall, EPN raises
important points about local capacity not only being underutilized
but literally harmed by PEPFAR's establishment of parallel processes,
such the Supply Chain Management System (SCMS).

Sharonann Lynch
salynch@healthgap.org
Health GAP (Global Access Project)
Tel +1 212 674-9598
Mob +1 646 645-5225
http://www.healthgap.org

E-DRUG: Can we document experiences with PEPFAR please? (7)
-------------------------------------------------------------

dear E-druggers,

Phillipa has hit the nail on the head. What is needed is a broad
brush approach to local empowerment - working at school and
university levels to inspire an interest in health care, and awareness
of the need for a wide range of health workers; working with all
manner of training institutions to facilitate rapid training of the skilled
work force required, working with policy makers to facilitate the
introduction of appropriate systems to satisfy HR needs, designing
systems that are more appropriate developing country
environments.

There must be lessons to be learnt locally that rather than exporting
methods from developed countries. Rather than the apparently
more simple but expensive drug related solutions, get involved in
research on behavorial, nutritional or environmental solutions.

Cheers

Billy

Billy Futter
Associate Professor
Faculty of Pharmacy
Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
email B.Futter@ru.ac.za
phone 046 603 8494
fax 046 636 1205