OUR GLOBAL MOVEMENT
Register for free via the Center for Global Development website here.
FEATURING
MODERATOR
ABOUT THE EVENT
Policymakers around the world have made the expeditious deployment of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines a top priority in order to bring the pandemic under control. But how much information about COVID-19 purchasing agreements is actually available in the public domain? And how can data sharing and contract publication help policymakers decide how much vaccine countries should buy, who should pay, and how they should be delivered and distributed?
Join the Center for Global Development and Transparency International for a discussion on opportunities for greater transparency in COVID-19 vaccine development and procurement, building on new research from Transparency International and the WHO Collaborating Centre for Governance, Accountability, and Transparency in the Pharmaceutical Sector on transparency in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials and contracting. Speakers will highlight the key risks of limited information on vaccine development and procurement and examine how to move toward more systematic and strategic approaches for improved global access and equity.
Register for free via the Center for Global Development website here.
The COVID-19 pandemic has required an unprecedented public health response, with governments dedicating massive amounts of resources to their health systems at extraordinary speed. Governments have had to respond quickly to fast-changing contexts, with many competing interests, and little in the way of historical precedent to guide them.
Transparency here is paramount; publicly available information is critical to reducing the inherent risks of such a situation by ensuring governmental decisions are accountable and by enabling non-governmental expert input into the global vaccination process.
This report analyses transparency of two key stages of the vaccine development in chronological order: the development and subsequent buying of vaccines.
Given the scope, rapid progression and complexity of the global vaccination process, this is not an exhaustive analysis. First, all the following analysis is limited to 20 leading COVID-19 vaccines that were in, or had completed, phase 3 clinical trials as of 11th January 2021. Second, we have concentrated on transparency of two of the initial stages of the process: clinical trial transparency and the public contracting for the supply of vaccines. The report provides concrete recommendations on how to overcome current opacity in order to contribute to achieving the commitment of world leaders to ensure equal, fair and affordable access to COVID-19 vaccines for all countries.
The COVID-19 pandemic has required a rapid public health response on a scale and speed unseen in modern times. Whilst those procuring goods and services have sought to expedite the emergency response, we observe a pattern of behaviour whereby critical safeguards for protecting the public purse have been thrown aside without adequate justification.
Emerging evidence from investigative journalists, the National Audit Office (NAO) and public interest litigation highlights these in startling detail.
Using evidence from these reports and analysis of available data, we identify two key issues concerning procurement practices during the pandemic. We also identify a third, more general issue relating to the mechanisms for ensuring integrity in public office.
From these findings, we propose ten steps that could address some of the concerns raised over the last year, and help avoid similar mistakes being repeated in the future. None of these are particularly costly, with three either complementing or endorsing proposals already included in the UK Government’s Green Paper for reform. If implemented effectively, they have the potential to increase transparency, deliver greater accountability, and reduce the risks associated with contracting, both during a crisis and in normal times.
We hope this provides a critical, yet constructive contribution towards recent debates. Some of what we propose may be uncomfortable for those of which we ask it – subjecting oneself to greater scrutiny is seldom a natural imperative for those in public office – yet these steps are critical to setting the record straight.
This report looks at how changes to the NHS in England over the past decade have created greater risks of abuses of power, and how reforms to local commissioning are exacerbating them. Since 2012, membership organisations made up of General Practitioners (GPs), called Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), have managed most of the NHS’ budget in England. They are responsible for purchasing £78 billion of healthcare services on behalf of the NHS. At the same time, these same GPs are independent contractors to the NHS and are in receipt of around £8.5 billion of NHS funding each year.
Because CCG governing boards comprise commissioners and contractors of health services, obvious conflicts of interest can arise. If not managed properly, this can result in the misuse of public money for private benefit at the expense of patients and taxpayers. As with any public body, these organisations should have measures in place to protect against the risks of impropriety. Specifically, they should have:
These core protective measures aim to prevent abuses of power for private gain and to ensure that decisions about healthcare services are taken in the best interests of patients and taxpayers.
This report looks at the potential scale of conflicts of interest within local NHS commissioning organisations in England, and how these organisations protect against their abuse. It covers CCGs and their emerging successor bodies that are taking over the co-ordination of local NHS services – Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) and Integrated Care Systems (ICSs).
