Tag: healthcare funding

EDITORIAL | After Major Research Cuts, SA Charts a New Path

To limit the damage from the US research cuts, the SAMRC mobilised a rescue fund of about R600 million.

Spotlight Editors

It has been a bruising year or so for medical researchers in South Africa with the US pausing, cancelling, and then resuming some grants. But as bad as things were, what played out wasn’t the worst case scenario, and momentum is now building toward recovery.

For decades, the United States government has been the world’s top funder of medical research. When it started cutting research funding last year, South Africa was caught in the firing line. This is because the US administration decided to specifically target South Africa, but also because South Africa was uniquely exposed due to the sheer volume of US-funded research here.

Over recent decades, South Africa built an impressive network of research groups and infrastructure to support high quality research – all underpinned by a strong regulatory environment, several good universities, and many productive partnerships with research groups from across the world. All this, plus the fact that we have large TB and HIV epidemics, means that South Africa was, and still is, one of the best places in the world to conduct research on these two diseases.

But a weakness of South Africa’s impressive research infrastructure was its overreliance on US funding.

To be clear, this was not an overreliance on aid or charity. South African researchers won grants from the US by coming out on top in rigorous and highly competitive selection processes. Much of the research done here benefited people around the world, including in the US.

Instead, the thing that we overly relied upon was that the US would continue to make medical research grants in a way that is rational and in our common interest.

There was much chaos and uncertainty last year with the pausing, cancellation, and resuming of grants. One small positive is that bad as things were, what played out wasn’t the worst case scenario we seemed to be heading for. At least some projects got their funding flows restored. You can read more about that in this Spotlight article.

But there is no doubt that the situation remains very bleak. While some studies that were already underway will be completed, it seems very unlikely that the US will fund any new studies in South Africa in the coming years. Given the historic scale of US investment here, the total volume of clinical trials conducted in South Africa will almost certainly fall precipitously.

Charting a new course

One ray of light in all this has been the response from the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) – probably the best run of all the entities linked to the Department of Health.

To limit the damage from the US research cuts, the SAMRC mobilised a rescue fund of about R600 million. This includes major contributions from National Treasury, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the ELMA Foundation.

Some of this funding has already helped sustain dozens of research projects and protect vital expertise during a period of instability. The current funding supports work in HIV, TB, newborn and child health, as well as non-communicable and other infectious diseases.

One example is a cutting-edge HIV vaccine clinical trial that began in January at the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation’s clinical research site at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town. While still in its early stages, the study aims to help piece together what an effective HIV vaccine might look like.

Beyond the SAMRC’s efforts, universities and research institutions have also stepped in, raising funds to safeguard projects and retain skilled staff whose jobs were at risk.

Even so, we are still facing a massive net loss to money for medical research in South Africa.

What to do?

Funding from international partners will remain vital in South Africa. For now, the US government still invests substantial funds in South Africa, as does several philanthropies and the European Union, through the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. There are also new partnerships such as one we recently reported on between South African and Korean researchers.

Such partnerships are not just about money – science thrives where there is collaboration across national borders. In fact, almost all of the most important TB and HIV clinical trials conducted in South Africa in the last two decades were collaborations between researchers from multiple countries. No matter how you slice it, collaboration with international partners will remain an essential foundation of the medical research landscape in South Africa.

The problem was never that South African researchers took too much money from the US or other donors, or worked too closely with researchers based in other countries. One might quibble on details here and there, but on the whole, US-South African research collaboration in recent decades has been a resounding success.

Rather, the problem was that we invested so little of our own funds that we became overly vulnerable to changes in external funding.

Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, president and CEO of the SAMRC, previously told Spotlight that the SAMRC receives in the region of R2 billion from government per year, including funds from both the Department of Health and the Department of Science and Innovation.

Unlike so many parts of our government, the SAMRC is a well-run entity that got clean audits in each of the last five years. This strongly suggests that money allocated to it won’t be wasted or looted. If we understand recent messaging from the Finance Minister and National Treasury, this is precisely the kind of clean government spending that should be rewarded in future budgets.

Relative to health budgets more generally and to what government has historically spent on entities such as South African Airways, the SAMRC’s budget is tiny. As far as we can tell, the current funding level is largely a product of history – apart from the still widespread atmosphere of austerity, there really isn’t any other reason why the budget shouldn’t be scaled up over the next three years to be double what it is now.

The SAMRC supports a sector in which South Africa has truly world-class capacity – capacity that as we speak remains under threat. More than just the research studies and the jobs for young scientists, what is at stake here is the idea of South Africa as a place where we can do world-class medical research. Allowing funding cuts to extinguish this bright spark, would feel like a victory for Afro-pessimism.

The reality is that if President Cyril Ramaphosa and National Treasury seizes the opportunity, the shock of the US funding cuts could be turned into a bright new beginning for medical research in South Africa – all at a price that in relative terms is very low. Let’s hope they have the vision and ambition to seize the day.

Disclosure: The Gates Foundation is mentioned in this article. Spotlight receives funding from the Gates Foundation, but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Stopping Health Funding in Africa Weakens America

This is an opportunity for President Ramaphosa to lead

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

By Nathan Geffen and Marcus Low

President Donald Trump’s administration took a cruel decision this past week to freeze US foreign aid for health, potentially leaving millions of people in many African countries without their life-saving antiretroviral treatment.

On Wednesday morning, Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio backtracked on part of that decision. But if it is not reversed permanently we can expect advances in life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa of the past two decades to start coming undone. We can also expect HIV infection rates to start picking up again, as people with HIV start getting viral rebound and become more infectious.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was started by the Republican administration led by George W. Bush in 2003. The complexity of world politics is such that the president who perhaps did more than anyone else to unravel confidence in global rules and norms – by invading Iraq – also championed a programme that has saved many millions of lives. Bush described PEPFAR as “compassionate conservatism”.

PEPFAR had bipartisan support. It is one of the greatest contributions the US has made to the world. It is now under threat by people claiming with straight faces – who came to power while the US economy is booming – to make America great again.

About $5-billion went into PEPFAR last year. Although it’s a huge amount of money it’s a tiny fraction of the US budget. It’s not straightforward to measure how many lives PEPFAR has saved but it is in the millions. This is a lot of bang for the buck.

The US government is also the largest contributor to the other major funder of global health: the Global Fund. Its future is also bleak.

Already in South Africa, vital services for extremely vulnerable clients had to pause, such as those provided by the Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute clinics in Johannesburg. Hopefully with Rubio’s announcement these can now resume but the situation remains chaotic and the future of this and other US-funded health programmes across Africa is fraught with uncertainty.

Opportunities

America’s abandonment of foreign aid for health relinquishes soft power. There is an opportunity here for the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan and China to step into the breach and increase their contributions to the Global Fund, or even to directly plug holes left by PEPFAR using bilateral aid – though such funding may come too late for some.

This would not merely be an act of charity. In the post-World War II world, what has made countries great, powerful, prestigious and influential is not nastiness and murder, but investing in projects of solidarity that make the world a better place. US wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq degraded US power. Its arming of Israel, especially during the war on Gaza, has shown US concern for universal human rights to be hypocritical and worsened its global standing. By contrast PEPFAR unequivocally enhanced its superpower status.

President Cyril Ramaphosa can display great leadership by meeting with leaders of wealthy countries and convincing them to increase spending to support the health systems of poorer countries.

But perhaps the biggest opportunity is for African countries themselves. Many remain far too dependent on foreign aid to run their health systems. A country like South Africa should be able to pay for every last cent of its health systems. Corruption and mismanagement have had an inordinate role in making this difficult.

For countries like Malawi, Mozambique and others, there is a long way to go before they can pay their own way for HIV treatment. But pressure, from within and out these countries, must be put on their governments to build robust economies capable of delivering tax revenue to spend more on health.

In a very divided world where illiberal nationalist populism is on the rise and African governments are for the most part still weak and corrupt, these opportunities seem unlikely to be seized. But we hope we are proven wrong.

Geffen is the editor of GroundUp. Low is the editor of Spotlight. Both served in the Treatment Action Campaign which successfully campaigned for HIV medicines in South Africa, as well as other countries.

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Read the original article.