Campaign for Access or Access to Campaign?

The Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines was created 17 years ago, based on assumptions that both market failure in an increasingly privatize R & D system and patents barriers were the main causes of complete failure of access to treatment to the majority of people in low resource countries . Our work with activists on HIV has been exemplary, access to ART increased dramatically. The environment has changed: MSF created DNDI to boost innovations for non-market driven research and contributed to create the Medicine Patent Pool (MPP) which strongly destabilized the existing patent paradigm. There is an increase in privatization of care; many people continue to have limited access to the right diagnosis, prevention and treatment. The progress on the development on safe medication for certain diseases is extremely slow, because there is no business interest.

After several discussions early 2016 on MSF’s future role in Research and Development and more broadly on medical innovation concluded MSF’s interest to increase commitment in R & D , we are questioning what would be the most adapted internal model and how far decisions made upon a vision developed 17 years ago need to be revised.

What do we need for the years to come to support our operations and which direction to prioritize?

Should we mostly join forces with Global Health actors and focus dossiers like R and D systems, trying to shift political dynamics?

Or should we rather have the Campaign focusing on specific diseases developing diagnostic, treatment and preventive tools within adapted strategies in a more pragmatic , close to MSF field realities approach even if less ambitious?

This debate was not recorded but here is a summary in English and French.

By: Göran Svedin