Imagine it’s the mid-1990s and the U.S. has decided to pursue policies that would restrict trade and investment to Asia instead of promoting it. Would those markets still prosper? Would the U.S. have grown as strongly or had the same counterweight to China if the American government had abandoned Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore or other regional markets?

At the time, these countries represented the next frontier of economic opportunity for American companies seeking to establish manufacturing and financial hubs, sell to millions of new consumers and tap an emerging talent base. Much of the economic data from the past thirty years underscores the mutual economic benefits that came from favorable policies that promoted deeper diplomatic cooperation and corporate investment in Asia.

I had a front row seat on this economic rocket ride early in my career, spending more than four years right after college working in international marketing throughout Southeast Asia. We have seen a tectonic shift in global trade since then, mostly resulting in incalculable benefits to global trading partners, including the U.S., as market access has opened for an array of goods and services. In combination with health systems investments, countries like Indonesia, which were once leading recipients of development assistance, have seen their GDPs increase to the point where they are now considered middle-income countries and are providing economic assistance to other countries in public health programs like the ones supported by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

This sort of massive transformation came about because the U.S. and other countries played the long game. It’s crucial to keep this in mind – and the hypothetical scenario of where we would be today if we had lopped off trade opportunities with Asia 30 years ago – because we are about to retreat from the next great frontier market of the 21st century: Africa.

The implications of such a move are reflected in economic and demographic data. Eleven out of the top 30 fastest-growing economies in the world last year were in Africa. A staggering 70 percent of the population is under 30 years old, a tsunami of innovators, entrepreneurs, researchers and everyday workers hungry to supercharge their futures. In health, education, financial services, technology, manufacturing and many other sectors, African markets are showcasing new models that can help emerging economies leapfrog in their economic development.

It’s a big reason why China, India, the Gulf States and many other countries are racing to establish economic partnerships with key African markets so they have an established presence as the region becomes more prosperous. But the United States is opting out.

Currently, plans developed by the Trump Administration to reorganize the State Department indicate an intention to scale back the American diplomatic presence substantially in Africa. This follows the dismantlement of USAID, de-funding of PEPFAR and other key public health programs, and the anticipated scuttling of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a vital trade agreement that allows for duty-free access to the U.S. for many African exports.

The result of these cuts could leave the U.S. government and companies sidelined from any meaningful diplomatic engagement and commercial gains as African markets race ahead with support from our greatest geopolitical rivals. Without robust engagement from American embassies, U.S. companies may be hobbled as they seek to create commercial partnerships, understand the competitive landscape of key African markets, negotiate regulatory barriers and navigate legal and operational threats that arise in any market.

Such a shutout may be felt acutely by American biopharmaceutical companies and health start-ups that include African markets in their clinical trials, partner with national governments and civil service organizations on early-market initiatives, attract talented scientists and build brand loyalty with more than a billion new health consumers. Policy and regulatory issues in Africa are routine problems that healthcare companies work with American embassies to solve, along with risk management.

Then there is the potential cost to domestic U.S. healthcare from cutting global health programs and diplomatic presence in Africa. USAID offices were often attached to American embassies and have been among the first to respond to the early detection of disease outbreaks. The U.S. spent $900 million in 2023 to fund laboratories and emergency preparedness and response in more than 30 countries, many in Africa. Those programs are now on hold, which increases the danger that outbreaks of polio, Ebola, Marburg, and mpox, as well as bird flu, could erupt. Without that frontline defense, the risks grow dramatically higher for existing and new diseases to reach Americans at home and overwhelm our health systems.

It’s become cliché to say “health there affects health everywhere,” but when more than 77 million people travel to the U.S. from foreign destinations in 2024, it’s obvious that humans are the greatest vector known to disease. America’s massive biomedical research capacity and our biopharma companies are at the vanguard of protecting our health. Abandoning our political and commercial connection to key countries in Africa reverses years of important progress.

We depend on access and cooperation with Africa’s emerging markets to help maintain our health defenses and build a next generation drug pipeline, but also to create a pathway to future economic growth. Without the vital support our companies receive through U.S. diplomatic assistance, that pathway could be closed off. Are we prepared to risk that?

The post Retreating from the Opportunity of a Century appeared first on Medika Life.

Pharmaceuticals have been spared so far from the growing trade war between the United States and many other nations. But that run of fortune may soon be coming to an end as President Trump said recently that the United States will announce a “major” tariff on pharmaceutical imports “very shortly.” While we do not know what the delay in implementing other tariffs means for the threatened tariffs on pharmaceuticals — those on automobiles, for example, are going ahead as planned — the implications of tariffs on pharmaceuticals could have a dramatic impact on multiple areas throughout the US and global healthcare ecosystem.

Tariffs on medicines will, of course, increase prices for US patients. But, as with many other aspects of the fast-moving trade war, this one is likely to have unintended consequences as well. We think that companies should prepare now with an eye to mitigating problems and be prepared to communicate the ramifications of tariffs on health-related areas to diverse audiences, from regulators and policymakers to health providers and patients.

The most likely knock-on effect is on patents and other intellectual property (IP). The US has traditionally protected IP belonging to American companies and the global IP system by threatening trade retaliation against countries that do not respect IP. Those threats may now ring a bit hollow, especially among the countries most well-positioned to capitalize on erratic US policies on biopharma IP.

China

The semi-official Global Times reported on April 9 that China might consider “investigating the intellectual property benefits of US companies operating in China.” China has responded robustly to tariffs of 145% on most of its exports to the US. Vice-President J.D Vance’s characterisation of Chinese as “peasants” may complicate trade negotiations, making it very difficult for the Chinese government to seek conciliation instead of escalation.

As our colleagues have already pointed out, China sees a vast opportunity in the US’s exit from global health. China’s thriving biotech and life sciences sector wants to do more to supply South Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Its COVID vaccines were deployed across the world, but China is positioning its vaccines industry to meet routine and pandemic needs.

The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) explicitly prioritised biotechnology as a strategic sector for national development, aiming to position the country as a global leader in the bioeconomy by 2035. The Healthy China 2030 and Made in China 2025 initiatives have prioritised development of medical R&D and manufacturing, both in small molecules and biologicals. The government uses subsidies, financial incentives, public-private partnerships, and talent recruitment programmes to foster biotech innovation. High-tech science parks and innovation hubs have been established in regions such as Shanghai and Shenzhen to strengthen industrial capabilities. China is particularly focusing on synthetic biology, gene editing, stem cell research, brain science, and regenerative medicine.

There is an obvious synergy here. China may well relax IP protections for US-based companies, while maintaining its strengthened domestic IP regimen. At its most basic, this would allow Chinese producers to export biosimilars and generic copies of small molecules still protected by patents in the US and EU. Probably more significant would be the shortcuts it might allow Chinese developers in producing new therapeutics and vaccines that build on established American discoveries.

India

In 2022, almost half of US generic medicines came from India. New tariffs could dramatically affect the affordability of medicines within the USA.

India is, for now, not responding to tariffs of 26% on most of its other exports and is putting its hopes on a bilateral trade agreement (BTA) to be concluded by the third quarter of 2025. It may happen, but because presidential authority to conclude trade agreements has expired, the agreement would require Congressional approval and that is usually a fraught process. Absent a BTA, India will look for leverage and, to encourage a BTA’s progress, it may seek to apply pressure in the meantime. In this, India’s government has an advantage: it can leave action to India’s sophisticated civil society sector and the country’s activist courts.

India has long been on the US Priority Watch List for intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement because of rumbling disputes over administrative and legislative issues. However, India’s generics industry has largely been forced to respect IP on medicines since the early years of this century. That could change without any provocative action by India’s government.

India has recently taken steps to expedite the approval of new treatments based on registration by stringent regulatory authorities such as the EMA and the FDA. Based on these approvals, ordinary Indians can import medicines for personal use. This probably has an untested implication for patents.

India’s Supreme Court has long held that a patent can only be valid in India if the patent holder is “working the patent” in the country; practically this means that a medicine discoverer has to have taken some reasonable steps to make its treatments accessible to Indian patients. The slow pace of approvals in India — and the option of submitting for approval later than in other countries — has meant that developers could control application of this doctrine in the past. Courts might now say that there are few good reasons for a delay in availability in the country and that failure to provide access in these circumstances could invalidate a patent.

India’s government can honestly say that it is powerless to control the courts and fairly helpless to resist activism around patents — look, for example, at the scholarship and training on India’s ever-excellent SpicyIP website. A new trade agreement with the US, when applied fully, could reinforce IP protection but, in its absence, the government can say with some justification that it would have trouble getting any new legislation on pharma IP through the two chambers of Parliament.

As with China, a more subtle threat may come from India’s emerging R&D-based vaccines and medicines industry. The job of developers is much easier if they can use the trade secrets of established rivals.

Ireland

The pharmaceutical industry may have some relief because it holds so much of its intellectual property in Ireland. This is a very sore point for the Trump Administration, but could mitigate the danger from any future moves by China, India and other countries to “investigate US intellectual property benefits”: no-one wants a trade war with the EU as well as the US.

Ireland has, however, been a laggardly partner to the pharma industry. It has been slow to adopt the EU’s United Patent Court (because doing so requires a referendum in Ireland). More seriously, it is one of the slowest countries in Europe to grant access to new medicines. This does not create a legal hazard for patent holders but it does weaken the country’s moral and public relations case, especially because Ireland’s delays are partly the result of policies that favour inefficient national generic producers.

Impact of IP threats

Weakening intellectual property may offer short-term improvements in access, but has many long-term risks.

Generics from India, in particular, are associated with much higher risks to patients than medicines produced in Europe, Israel, Jordan or North America. We don’t yet know enough about generics from China.

It is intellectual property that powers innovation. Developing new drugs is a high-risk, costly endeavour, often requiring billions of dollars and over a decade of research. Strong IP protections, such as patents, allow companies to recoup these investments by granting them exclusive rights to market their products for a defined period. This exclusivity ensures that innovators can profit from their discoveries without immediate competition from generics or imitators. Strong IP frameworks also encourage partnerships between pharmaceutical companies, universities, and research institutions and enable the sharing of expertise and resources, accelerating the development of new treatments while safeguarding proprietary knowledge.

What can companies do?

The evolving global trade outlook is changing by the day, and sometimes by the hour, so it is important to have one or more internal task forces with public affairs experts and consultants in China, India and Latin American markets with some similar dynamics — Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, in particular. Having an internal and an external perspective with clear lines of communication with expert advisors is very important in our current trade climate because different people know different things in fast-changing scenarios. There needs to be a different task force in Ireland, a country that will likely come under unaccustomed scrutiny.

Access planning may be the best mitigation for many of the risks. It is important in India for obvious reasons. It may be important in other countries as part of a response for moves by generic producers elsewhere.

Communication with policymakers and influencers matters more than ever. Policy responses will happen in a far more condensed time frame than they usually do. Having open channels may make all the difference, as well as having a tested protocol in place that allows companies to rapidly distinguish and mitigate misinformation before it influences policy direction. There are many consultancies and advisers with expertise, but it is important to include ones who have worked on intellectual property as well as trade.

The post How the growing trade war could affect biopharma intellectual property appeared first on Medika Life.

Yet today, we find ourselves dismantling these hard-won achievements. Extraordinary cuts to disease prevention, research, and surveillance programs signal a large-scale reversal of a successful strategy of containment and elimination. Such an irresponsible pivot risks opening the door for vaccine-preventable diseases, drug-resistant infections and new pandemics to reemerge with devastating force. If we continue down this path, the consequences will be felt not just in developing nations, but across the industrialized world, where health systems already are under strain.

It could take years to regain the high ground we currently hold against infectious diseases; many countries may never get there again. While pursuing modernization and efficiencies in the global health system is vital, randomly eliminating or suppressing funding and institutions we rely on to develop the pipeline of new vaccines, therapeutics, and practices to fight tomorrow’s pathogens only weakens us further. Our most dangerous disease threats constantly evolve, probe our weaknesses, and exploit natural opportunities to strike.

The attack on America’s preeminent medical research institutions and the innovations they fuel severely undermines our ability to counter disease while degrading the very talent we need to protect us: the next generation of scientists and medical researchers.

Many prominent health leaders are sounding the alarm, but until a coalition of the informed begins to take shape, we may as well be screaming into the wind. Unless a concerted effort is made to change course, the infrastructure, jobs, institutional knowledge, and recruitment of future health experts that constitute one of humanity’s greatest achievements may be dismantled. Surely by now we have learned that research and disease prevention is dramatically less costly than deploying the vast resources necessary to respond to a new outbreak.

Here’s one path forward: U.S. health communicators, advocates, and leaders should coordinate framing the issues to state and congressional lawmakers who stand to lose the most from the current health funding policy direction. Many of the places contributing the most to America’s competitive advantage in biomedical research are in conservative districts that receive funding from the NIH and other public sources.

Similarly, emerging diseases often pose the highest threat to people battling chronic diseases or living in areas underserved by health services, which means all of us are affected, regardless of economic status or ideological belief. People at every level of the health system—from practitioners to patients, researchers to drugmakers—should be energized to speak with one voice and let policymakers know that retreat in the face of defeatable disease threats is the wrong direction for the U.S.

Disease is humanity’s greatest enemy, and it constantly hovers at our doorstep. Do we pretend not to hear it knocking, or do we recognize its dangers and act?

That’s exactly the moment we are facing now. Our situation is complicated by the fact that our most important defenses – biomedical research and disease prevention infrastructure – are being demolished before our eyes. It will take real courage to act, but we must marshal our resources, defying the ambivalence and dismissiveness that make us more vulnerable to looming infectious disease threats. This is no time to retreat.

The post A Turning Point for Global Health appeared first on Medika Life.

Questionable parenting practices? Yeah. But our dinner conversations are amazing and spark the level of curiosity and appreciation in public health that I wish more people had, especially right now.

About three weeks ago, my kids saw that I was a little worried about something. Instead of telling them outright, I turned to our old game and asked them to tell me what they thought was the scariest disease.

Most people would go for Ebola because of its Hollywood-level freak out potential. Cholera is very scary as well, and an awful way to die. But my kids know by now that there’s one blue ribbon winner in my book when it comes to very scary diseases: Influenza.

Not garden-variety seasonal influenza. No, I’m talking about pandemic level influenza, like the 1918 pandemic flu that killed an estimated 50 million people and sickened a fifth of the world’s population.

This strain of influenza is the stuff of nightmares. A disease that spreads so rapidly that 2-3 healthy people could get infected by one sick person. A disease so deadly that it turns our own immune system against us, tricking it into a massive overreaction called a cytokine storm that either kills us or lays waste to our natural defenses so that that infections like bacterial pneumonia just waltz right into our bodies.

It’s why in 1918 the healthiest people often died the fastest: as in showing up for work in the morning and dead by night kind of fast. In places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Seattle and countless corners of the world, the Great Influenza killed so quickly and debilitated people so widely that basic services broke down. In scenes reminiscent of Medieval times during the Bubonic Plague, when families were asked to bring out their dead, there were instances of bodies being stacked in the streets of America’s major cities.

And just like Bubonic Plague, where victims near death displayed the tell-tale, malodourous rash of “Ring around the Rosie” children’s song fame, care providers in 1918-19 watched as patients who were near death turned blue from oxygen failing to get through disease-ravaged lungs.

Here’s another little-known twist: Most people refer to the 1918-19 pandemic as the Spanish Influenza, assuming that was where it originated. But that’s not the case. Because of World War I, most of northern Europe was in a news blackout and didn’t report that thousands of soldiers engaged in fighting there were falling sick. Spain was the first European country to report on the emergence of the new disease, earning the unfortunate label as the epicenter for the pandemic.

There is general consensus among global health experts and historians that the true origin of the Spanish Influenza was likely thousands of miles away from Spain. It’s one of the many inconvenient truths that was glossed over in the midst of all the finger pointing and xenophobia directed to China during Covid-19: The deadliest plague in modern human history started just over a century ago not in a lab or a crowded urban tenement, but on a pig farm in the middle of Kansas, USA.

Which is why I’m watching the pigs now.

On October 29, the U.S. Department of Agriculture detected the first known transmission of H5N1 avian influenza to pigs on a small backyard farm in Oregon where poultry had been infected and euthanized recently. While certainly not a reason to panic, this milestone was alarming enough that I couldn’t disguise my concern during family dinner three weeks ago.

There are several reasons why we should all be keeping an eye on where H5N1 goes next.

First, think of pigs like a Vitamix for whirling around zoononic (animal) and human strains of influenza and spilling out the perfect pandemic-level smoothie. Because we share so much in common with pigs, genetically speaking, and because pork is such an integral part of the global diet, the potential for this animal species to serve as an efficient transmitter of deadly influenza strains is particularly high. This is worrisome, because H5N1 is very deadly to humans, carrying with it a 50+ percent fatality rate (compared to a roughly 1 percent case fatality ratio for Covid-19 among U.S. patients).

Second, if Americans are angry now about the price of eggs – which strangely no presidential candidate connected to mass chicken culls from H5N1 – just wait for the economic and food supply impact of broader infections among pig herds.

But most importantly, America’s public health system has been slow to track H5N1, ignoring important lessons from Covid-19 and downplaying the potential threat that could be on the horizon. There are broad concerns that surveillance has lagged and impacted flocks and herds are being undercounted. U.S. media attention has focused on the safety of the nation’s milk supply, which is interesting since pasteurization kills all viruses and bacteria (something to note for all of you raw milk drinkers out there). And there seems to be inexplicable foot dragging with our efforts to conduct and broadly share regular genetic sequencing of different H5N1 samples to understand how the virus may be mutating into a more virulent pathogen.

Instead of focusing on the infrastructure we have in place to detect a potential spillover of H5N1 to humans, we are poised to cut funding and resources needed to effectively track and contain outbreaks before they spread.

While pandemic fatigue is real and we can’t dismiss its influence on U.S. politics, economics or popular culture right now, we also cannot afford to leave our front door open when a virus with pandemic intentions is creeping around our yard.

Now is the time to review and publicly discuss the lessons learned from Covid-19 on surveillance, health system strengthening, rapid reporting and effective intra—government and public communications. We have more advanced technologies and biosecurity measures that we can leverage, as well as incentives to ensure livestock operators are not collateral damage in our war against disease. Lastly, we can’t afford to weaken routine immunization policies when they may be our first line of defense against a novel pathogen that overwhelms our health systems again.

By combining proactive policies with strong communication strategies, including more effective ways to engage and educate the media, we can effectively prevent and manage the threat posed by H5N1 and other pandemic influenza viruses, safeguarding public health and minimizing economic disruptions.

The question is whether there is enough political will remaining after Covid to keep our guard up against pandemic threats, either homegrown in the U.S. or originating in a far-off hot zone. The answer is what keeps me up at night.

The post Watching the Pigs appeared first on Medika Life.

The majority of patients suffering from coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension or heart failure, and life-saving health services live in highly populated urban areas. But imagine having to drive five hours to see a physician, knowing there is a high likelihood that the doctor will not be there when you arrive.

That scenario is a frequent reality among American Indian and Alaska Native patients living in one of the 574 Federally recognized tribal areas in the U.S. Many of these reservations represent the most medically underserved areas in the country, where the quality of healthcare varies widely and significant physician shortages are chronic issues, eroding the level of trust and participation that patients have in their available health resources.

As part of a new podcast series exploring innovative technologies, partnerships and processes that could lead to breakthroughs in public health, I recently spoke with Rear Admiral (ret.) Jim Galloway, MD, a former Assistant U.S. Surgeon General to two presidents and currently the Chief Medical Officer of Native Arc, a Native American, woman-owned public benefit company developing novel, sustainable partnerships to reduce critical physician shortages and improve healthcare in Indigenous tribal areas.

From his decades of experience working as a cardiologist in some of the largest tribal areas in the southwest and across the nation, Dr. Galloway has witnessed the discrepancies in care provided to Indigenous populations, where congressional studies have found health provider vacancy rates approaching 50 percent in some areas, an issue that adversely affects the availability of services, waiting times and quality of care that patients experience.  

The pandemic underscored the state of health available to Indigenous populations relative to patients in the rest of the country. While New York City received headlines for its COVID-19 infection rate, the Navajo Nation—which covers parts of Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico—surpassed New York and New Jersey combined in mid-2020 for the number of cases it endured.

The result of the pandemic and years of neglect is an erosion of trust between patients and health providers. In certain specialized services, such as obstetrics, the impact of this loss of services and confidence is connected to disproportionately higher rates of mortality. For example, American Indian and Alaska Native women are twice as likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than White women and less likely to trust physicians.

To reverse this trend, Native Arc and its partner company, Arc Health, have developed and expanded a novel partnership model that fills physician vacancies with high-quality, mission-driven doctors and academic fellows from among the country’s leading medical institutions in a model to enhance tribal, Indian health and academic collaborations that improve health care services and facilities.

Medical staff take a collaborative approach to addressing health challenges unique to Indigenous tribal communities, weaving together the latest medical practices with a deep understanding of the cultural issues and social determinants impacting patient health in these areas.

The results of this partnership model are remarkable: A decline in physician vacancies, greater collaboration between tribal, Indian health systems and academic centers to drive improved quality, increased services and educational support, as well as improved professional development among doctors and other medical staff. Importantly, the academic institutions and incoming providers also better understand the culture and underlying socioeconomic issues that can be applied to understanding patient health in underserved areas.

One of the program’s most impressive outcomes points to the heart of its potential as a sustainable force for good: Many physicians and providers serving at these sites choose to stay on as full-time physicians for Indigenous tribal areas. These numbers are additive to the number of residents and students from academic institutions who return to serve tribal communities.

That’s a powerful testament and offers a possible path forward for improving the state of healthcare within tribal and rural populations, both in the U.S. and around the world. The more we can replicate partnership programs that place mission-driven physicians and fellows in areas of need and build meaningful collaborations between tribal and Indian health systems, the more likely physicians are to stay in those communities. This model also increases the opportunities to leverage the expertise, connections, and resources of both the physicians and academic centers to deliver long-term improvements to patient care.

Listen to the full podcast here to get the full picture of Native Arc’s innovative approach and Dr. Galloway’s powerful insights from his decades of service.

The post Reversing the Doctor Drain appeared first on Medika Life.

It was a move that supercharged my mission to make a difference in the world. It sparked a passion for providing people with a better shot at prosperity by improving access to health services, often by working in some of the world’s most challenging places.

My public health journey has had a lot of high points and reached another milestone this week with the launch of the FINN Partners Global Health Impact Group dedicated to harnessing the potential for health to catalyze economic growth in emerging markets and underserved communities around the world.

Looking back, I could not have wished for a better time to shift to public health. I started my career working in the consumer goods sector in Southeast Asia when countries there were the hottest economies around. This background and my corporate experience in the U.S. prepared me to blend traditional marketing and communications practices with the real-world challenges that confronted me in DR Congo and many other African and Asian countries where I would later work.

In the years since I moved to Kinshasa, a historic shift in the balance of power has gained momentum as traditionally poor and middle-income countries – nations whose citizens make roughly between $1,100 and $13,000 per year – gain prominence on the global economic stage.

“The rise of the rest,” as author and CNN Commentator Fareed once called this phenomenon, captures the growth of the group of low- and middle-income countries that now contribute almost 34 trillion dollars to the global economy, nearly one-third of total worldwide output, according to the World Bank.  To highlight the tremendous pace that developing countries have set over the past two decades, consider:  Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as reported by the International Monetary Fund, increased at an average rate of 4 percent among developing economies, compared with an average just under 2 percent growth for advanced countries.

While the astounding population growth of young African consumers has not yet translated to an economic boom, as global health communication advocate Mark Chataway notes, I remain optimistic that the dynamic growth we need to drive the global economy will come from the future markets of Africa and Asia.

The emergence of lower-income consumers as a major market force in these two regions offers tremendous opportunities for companies that can re-tool their marketing mix from a model that has traditionally targeted the most affluent one billion people on the planet to one that efficiently reaches the following several billion people.

While this idea isn’t new, it warrants renewed interest and investment in a post-pandemic, highly fractured world flirting with a rejection of globalism in favor of economically ruinous national isolationism.

Here’s why U.S. companies need to deepen their engagement with emerging markets: As incomes continue to rise in more than 100 countries throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America, so too will the demand for better healthcare, convenience products, electronics, and household staples, to name a few categories. 

How can organizations most effectively and sustainably succeed in this environment? In evaluating strategies for entry and sustainable management in many emerging markets, companies should consider establishing alliances with an unlikely resource: leading Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) operating locally. 

Building public-private partnerships between corporate and non-profit organizations can benefit both groups working in nascent and emerging markets. NGOs can often provide sharp insight into consumer habits and preferences, access to government influencers, and opportunities to build significant goodwill, brand recognition, and loyalty among local communities through the effective sponsorship of corporate social responsibility projects.

A strategic alliance between non-profits and companies also offers a less threatening means for global firms to operate in a new country than through the development of a venture with a local company in the same industry, a potential competitor that could receive protection from a host government down the road.

International and locally based NGOs have operated in developing countries for decades and have learned through tough lessons what works and what will often lead to failure.  Working with lean budgets and staff, many of these organizations have succeeded in grassroots outreach, communications, mobilization, and behavior change within population segments, often well outside of conventional marketing channels.  Those segments define the middle and bottom-of-the-pyramid consumers now sought after by multinational firms trying to build their brands and sustain competitive advantage in emerging markets.

At the same time, many non-profit organizations now view partnerships with the private sector as essential to their long-term ability to fulfill their mission of serving local populations.  Highly effective corporate responsibility programs have become mainstream in emerging markets as companies work with NGOs to contribute goodwill to needy populations while also meeting operational interests, such as improving employee and community health or safeguarding valuable natural resources that drive local economies.

The power of partnerships can offer three areas of strategic advantage to firms entering developing markets, particularly in Africa and South Asia:

• 360^o Market Data: Rather than relying solely on outside research firms, companies can work with NGO partners to round out their understanding of the consumer landscape in a new country, mainly when vital economic and cultural elements are in play. By operating in poorer communities and managing customer research and outreach operations over several years, NGOs often have a ready-built network of communities for private companies to engage as part of their market shaping.  These communities may deliver a more representative study sample, and the methodology for any consumer research efforts will be more informed through the input that NGOs and local community representatives can offer. At the same time, NGOs need more sophisticated marketing and outreach tools, particularly in segmenting populations, to deliver more relevant messaging.  These are areas of technical expertise that private sector partners can share.

• Access to Government Decision Makers: The emergence of mainstream consumerism in developing countries alters how some governments can support private sector development and direct foreign investment. Local and international NGOs have valuable insights regarding which government contacts are most appropriate to engage and how best to work with them. Money may talk in emerging markets, but transparent relationships with key government decision-makers are paramount for long-term operational success and competitive advantage. NGOs are an integral resource for helping companies to forge these government relationships. Correspondingly, the changing world of international aid requires NGOs to develop multilateral funding streams. Public-private partnerships offer a means for NGOs to build greater credibility and differentiation by demonstrating that they have the project scope and capacity to appeal to a broad base of donors.

• Brand Equity Development: Corporate responsibility programs offer a platform for companies to create brand awareness and loyalty in new markets while building goodwill in under-resourced populations. A partnership with an NGO operating in a developing country provides the opportunity to identify projects that meet a community’s social needs and the sponsoring company’s interests. NGOs undertaking projects may also gain positive recognition through such partnerships, particularly in countries where the reputations of development organizations have suffered from aid fatigue.

The risks are significant for firms venturing into low- and middle-income markets.  Market data, local relationships, and flexible operating models are indispensable resources, as are the right alliances.  Before relying on traditional approaches for assessing new market opportunities, consider how successful engagement and communication with NGO partners may offer the insights and understanding required for companies to reach efficiently and sustainably some of the most promising but untapped segments of the world’s population.

The post Why Engagement with Emerging Markets Matters More than Ever appeared first on Medika Life.

The scale of our collective progress can be measured against a timeline of vaccine milestones. The polio vaccine brought hope to millions of families from America to Zambia. Up until the mid-Twentieth Century, few could imagine the eradication of smallpox, but a global vaccination campaign against the disease starting in the 1960s ushered in an era of new possibilities for billions. And the roll-out over the past week of the first-ever approved malaria vaccine may mark another landmark: the moment when children across Africa have been given hope in the form of a tool that can help them escape a plague that kills 500,000 of them each year.

A future where malaria is eliminated as a public health threat in the African continent may remain out of reach for the immediate future, but that shouldn’t stop us from working to fulfil our dreams of a malaria-free Africa. As it has with other diseases, the introduction of a new vaccine has the potential to catalyze innovation and create new opportunities for economic growth.

If the malaria vaccines enter the immunization schedule of most African countries over the next year, as planned, the steady stride of the region’s economic power may accelerate. When more children survive past their 5^th birthday and the strain on health systems is reduced, that’s not only intrinsically valuable, it’s a good thing for economic growth.

Healthy children fuel healthy economies

With the coming decades expected to see the ascendance of several African markets as global economic players, malaria vaccination could be a catalyst to sustained development in the region. This serves as a benefit for nations around the world, including the U.S.

Yet, one of the most immediate ways to derail Africa’s economic potential is to hamper the very immunization programs that have delivered the most impressive returns on health investments, both in Africa and globally. That’s what is on the line later this year when Gavi, the alliance responsible for financing the delivery of more than 19 different vaccines to low-and-middle-income countries, is set to have its funding reauthorized by the U.S. and several other governments.

Gavi has written the playbook for creating an investment-driven approach to providing emerging markets with the immunization infrastructure they need to thrive. In the 24 years since its founding, the alliance has vaccinated half of the world’s children. That alone is a remarkable achievement, but the alliance has matched humanitarian outcomes with powerful financial results: Its model has proven so successful that $1 of investment in Gavi yields $54 in health savings among its beneficiary countries. Peer-reviewed research has shown a strong link between child survival rates from vaccine-preventable diseases and GDP growth.

As investments of U.S. taxpayer funds go, few if any can rival the return that Gavi brings for the roughly $300 million committed to it by the American government each year. Looking beyond the direct impact on lives saved – nearly 18 million children and counting – global immunization programs supported by Gavi have strengthened health systems in many of the most vulnerable countries of the world. These are the very places where deadly disease outbreaks have the greatest chance of growing undetected until they are uncontainable.

Continuing support for routine immunization is essential

Gavi funding helps protect Americans by blunting the relentless pace of viruses and bacteria to evolve beyond our control. Better immunization against known threats, more sophisticated early-detection systems in disease hot zones, new vaccine manufacturing capacity closer to the likely sources of outbreaks, and hospital systems that are less burdened by increasingly preventable maladies like malaria – these are the building blocks that Gavi has helped put in place to foster a healthier future for all of us.

At a time when disinformation further erodes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting public health and the spread of disease is supercharged by climate change, the value of Gavi’s time-tested model deserves to be acknowledged through funding replenishment later this year. This would send an unmistakable message to the world that we can still fulfill the hopes and dreams of billions of people by providing the lifesaving vaccines they need to have a shot at a more prosperous, peaceful future.

The post A Gateway to Growth in Africa appeared first on Medika Life.

As soon as the video came on, I knew I was witnessing my mother’s final moments. It was too loud for me to tell her anything — that I loved her; that I was grateful for everything she had done for me; that I was proud of all she had accomplished — and I convinced myself that it would be easier to speak if I could take a few minutes to get off the ship and call back from a quieter spot. By the time I was able to ring again, she was gone.

The awful truth is that I said goodbye to my mom a long time ago. She first showed the lasting signs of Alzheimer’s Disease more than a decade ago and her decline was steep but lengthy. Despite continuing to travel to remote areas of Africa and Asia as a volunteer health worker — a path she picked up after joining the Peace Corps in retirement with my dad — she knew something was wrong. Her memory and judgment started to fade rapidly just before the pandemic, and I took whatever opportunities I had to share my feelings with her. COVID-19 isolation took its toll and by the time we could spend time together, she no longer knew who I was.

My experience with Alzheimer’s is one shared by millions of people around the world. Right now, in the U.S. alone, six million people are afflicted with the disease or a related form of dementia. And that number is expected to explode over the next 25 years to 13 million cases with the long tail of aging Baby Boomers. The failure rate for new therapeutics has been remarkably high. The two approved drugs have significant downsides, but that could change as artificial intelligence and modified mRNA treatments demonstrate greater viability.

What else could help?

We must prioritize Alzheimer’s as a public health threat and focus greater resources on reducing many of the root causes that scientists now suspect are linked to increased likelihood of developing the disease.

For years, I was among the many people who believed that Alzheimer’s Disease was largely linked to genetics. If my mother had it, and my grandmother had it, then there was a good chance Alzheimer’s was in my future as well. But this is wrong. Only 1 percent of cases are inherited, and most are related to rare, early-onset forms of the disease.

Increasingly, scientists are finding stronger links with other health threats — hypertension, inactivity, diabetes — that could signal predisposition. Reducing these chronic health issues has been a white whale in public health — it’s notoriously difficult to encourage people to adopt healthier behavior.

The expected boom in Alzheimer’s Disease cases comes with a unique opportunity.

One of the most effective ways to change behavior is by providing people with a single person or patient with whom they can identify. It’s called the identifiable victim effect, and it works like this: humans frequently get overwhelmed by large numbers — the thousands of people who die in a war, or get infected with a virus, or suffer from malnutrition. Stories that include statistics and big numbers lose their punch because the scale overwhelms us. We are numb to the impact as it relates to our own lives.

But when we hear a story about one person who is similar to someone we know, or we experience a health episode ourselves, we are significantly more likely to change our behavior and to advocate to those around us to consider alternatives. This may be a possible opportunity for course correction against Alzheimer’s: As more people experience their loved ones battling the disease or are thrust into the role of caretaker, the awareness of a connection between chronic disease and Alzheimer’s prevention could usher in a dramatic shift in healthier behavior among younger generations.

Such a shift can’t come too soon.

The projected economic burden from Alzheimer’s Disease is already $321 billion and is expected to top a staggering $1 trillion by 2050. Family and volunteer caretakers already spend 18 billion hours of unpaid time helping relatives with Alzheimer’s Disease. As more people like me enter the sandwich generation of caring for young families and aging parents at the same time, it is fair to assume that we will see a decline in productivity and corresponding increases in mental health crises and the kind of stressful behavior that fuels the cycle of health issues later in life. Outside of the companies that stand to profit from the health challenges of an aging population directly, the looming economic burden of Alzheimer’s should be a clear signal that chronic disease prevention is everyone’s business.

Framing Alzheimer’s Disease as a public health imperative linked to chronic disease prevention could be the catalyst we need to encourage younger people to adopt healthier behavior while there’s still enough time.

The post We Have More Control Over Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease Than We Think appeared first on Medika Life.

In an effort to get ahead of a potential tripledemic this winter of COVID-19, flu, and RSV that could overwhelm hospitals, health officials have re-booted an important program: making COVID test kits free again. Those kits will be available by mail to households starting September 25.

Next comes the hard part: convincing enough people to get the kits and then persuading them to follow quarantine guidelines if they or their family members get sick.

This is not the time to roll out stale messaging delivered by a carousel of health officials trying to convince the public to get the test kits. Americans are weary of being told to keep their guard up against a disease that many view as more of an inconvenience than a threat. If the sales pitch to get the kits is off, health officials may find that the test kits no longer serve as an effective public health tool. Instead, they could become another partisan symbol of perceived government overreach, further impeding people’s freedom to live as they want.

In short, we have a messaging challenge ahead of us, and if we haven’t taken to heart the lessons learned during the worst early days of the pandemic, we’re doomed to repeat mistakes that cost lives.

How can we be more thoughtful about containing COVID and other dangerous diseases? To generate greater public compliance for fighting an endemic disease, communicators must provide a credible and compelling case of the risk of inaction and convince people that ignorance – of not knowing your infection status – is greater than the cost of knowing. These can be very high bars to clear since people have different thresholds for risk and for being informed.

It’s likely we won’t clear those hurdles with the roll-out of the free test kits. Because the perceived risk of COVID-19 infection and severity is low, many people have adopted a “no test, no stress” attitude, especially in light of the potential personal disruption that COVID infection causes. It’s a dangerous direction and one of the reasons why we will continue to see cases spike.

For communicators to overcome the twin challenges of infection risk perception and status aversion, they must use convert communicators – people who are credible to specific audiences and have changed their views to support disease intervention. There is mounting data showing that people who identified as Republicans were far likelier to get infected by COVID and die from the disease than those from left-leaning political parties. Messaging that taps into this research could point to breaking through to these audiences.

Successful public health interventions rely on a strong majority of the population participating in disease mitigation efforts, which means spotlighting conservative voters who see the value of COVID testing and can serve as credible messengers to similarly ideologically inclined individuals. This is where digital storytelling, data visualization and engagement of champions outside of the health sector can be potent measures to build the case for supporting new public health tools.   

It is also important to truly understand the pain points that different audience segments cite as reasons for not wanting to know their infection status and to provide targeted counterpoints. Most people can’t afford to miss work, even with a mild case, and families can be heavily impacted when a parent must choose between going to work or keeping their kids home. In these and other scenarios, the test result becomes the thing people may begin to dread more than the disease itself.

To ensure that people do not feel like they must choose between a host of the least bad options when COVID comes to their home, the government must consider new incentives for reporting positive test results and adhering to public health guidelines. These can range from reinstituting protected sick leave that was available as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) during the pandemic to encouraging more employers to use the tax credits available through the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) to reimburse for employee sick leave. Without putting these and other options on the table, people will feel penalized even when they do the right thing.

The post It’s Time to Up Our Messaging Game Ahead of Another Winter with COVID appeared first on Medika Life.

Doctors still struggled to keep me alive as my fever spiked to 105 degrees Fahrenheit and my resting heart rate hovered around 175. I had multiple intravenous bags of quinine dripped into me, a routine treatment that brought with it the unfortunate risk of sudden cardiac arrest due to my infection while on Larium, a controversial and, in hindsight, ineffective antimalarial drug.

It’s a massive understatement to say malaria sucks, but I am among the lucky ones who get to say it at all. Malaria remains one of the greatest public health threats facing humanity, infecting 241 million people each year and inflicting incalculable damage on the economic prospects of endemic countries. If my description of malaria sounded bad, how could a 4-year-old kid battle the disease without most of the resources I had in Kinshasa? Most of the 500,000 people killed yearly by malaria are children under 5 – a vicious toll on future generations.

That’s why this week’s announcement by the WHO approving the use of a second malaria vaccine is astoundingly good news. Since the introduction last year of Mosquirix, the first-ever malaria vaccine brought to market by GSK last year, health officials have been trying to balance the limitations of the vaccine – both in efficacy and supply – with the high cost and urgency to get it distributed. With the approval of R21/Matrix-M, developed by the Serum Institute of India, Oxford University and Novavax, comes the potential for greater price competition and sufficient supply.

The news couldn’t come soon enough. As climate change expands the habitat of malaria-carrying mosquitos, two issues are rapidly emerging. First, regions that have been malaria-free for decades – or have never experienced malaria – will be in the projected range of vector-borne diseases within a matter of years. These include North America and parts of Europe. At the same time, the overuse of prophylactic medications, such as chloroquine-based drugs, is fueling increased resistance in regions such as Southeast Asia.

Second, malaria primarily afflicts rural communities in many areas where malaria is endemic. No longer. Researchers are now tracking new forms of malaria that are settling in densely populated urban areas. This is a potential tectonic shift in the threat that vector-borne disease poses to sustainable economic development and health system resilience. Seasonal outbreaks may crash worker productivity, shutter universities, and overwhelm hospitals.

The two approved malaria vaccines may help prevent the worst-case scenario looming in our future, but they are not solutions by themselves; they are part of a Swiss Army knife of tools that public health officials are deploying to contain malaria. Some, like insecticide-treated bed nets, provide trusted, low-cost and accessible interventions for low-income populations worldwide. Other theoretical options, such as genetically modifying male mosquitos or making humans “invisible” to the insects, may prove more effective in grabbing headlines than protecting communities. But with more volatile weather patterns and increased resistance fueling a surge in malaria mosquitos, nothing should be off the table or dismissed out of hand.

Why is malaria prevention more than a feel-good development story? The answer to that question lies in a simple calculus. Most of the potential for future economic growth will come from markets in the Global South. Several countries in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia represent a surge in young, increasingly educated and upwardly mobile consumers. The rise of megacities and other large urban centers can focus economic productivity, but such concentration also dramatically increases the impact of widespread, uncontrolled disease outbreaks.

The implications for the business community are clear. As we saw with COVID-19, the potential for disease outbreaks to cause prolonged economic disruption is high. And the ripple effects are extensive. Vector-borne diseases such as malaria are not the same as the next pandemic threat, of course. Thankfully we have a variety of tools to prevent and treat malaria.

The imperative now is to make sure we apply a greater sense of urgency and policy support to fund the research and mitigation programs that are necessary to protect vulnerable populations today, as well as the growth markets of tomorrow. This requires the global business community to become vocal champion for public health initiatives that help blunt a future where disease-carrying mosquitos can derail the economic vitality of the next generation of consumers.

The post Securing our Economic Future Against Malaria appeared first on Medika Life.