Center for Global Health R&D Policy Assessment Presentation to the WHO CEWG 6 April 2011 Kimberly Manno Reott, Project Director

Today’s presentation  Who we are  Current work  Reflections

Results for Development Institute  WHO WE ARE: Not-for-profit organization focused on reducing poverty in low-and middle-income countries by designing and promoting high impact investments in poor people.  WHAT WE DO: Evidence-based programs in health, education, governance, and innovative financing for development.  GLOBAL REACH: R4D has worked with over 75 organizations in over 40 countries around the globe.  R4D BY THE NUMBERS: Founded in 2007, $40 million in funding committed to date for projects. 30 full time, 20 part time staff. Washington, DC headquarters. R4D translates ideas and evidence into sound policy and program options that enable countries and development partners to achieve measurable results.

Center for Global Health R&D Policy Assessment Goal Audiences Provide objective and rigorous analyses of selected global health R&D policy/financing proposals – in order to sharpen international debate and decision-making Funding community Policymakers Proponents and advocates Science and industry Main Product Assessments of promising proposals Commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Our core team  Robert Hecht, R4D Managing director  Kimberly Manno Reott, Project director  Amrita Palriwala, Program officer  Aarthi Rao, Senior program associate  Paul Wilson, Senior technical expert

How have we picked ideas to assess? Fit of proposal within project scope  Proposals designed to remove a bottleneck to global health R&D  Re new sources of funding, we focus on those specific to global health  Focus on proposals that address product development rather than (only) expanding access to existing products Degree of development  Well-designed proposals that have not been fully implemented Potential impact if implemented  Proposal must promise important improvements if implemented Relevance and value of an in-depth assessment at this time

What we don’t do  Advocate for ideas  Actively design new mechanisms  “Grade” proposals or give thumbs up/down

Our Current Work  Prizes  Pooled Funds  Joint IP Management  Tax credits  Open Source Innovation

Our Current Work  Prizes  Open Source Innovation  Pooled Funds  Tax credits  Joint IP Management Assesses whether, how & when “incentive” prizes could accelerate R&D for neglected diseases F inal product and specific milestone prizes Examines the potential to engage industry Implications for other health technology prizes Preliminary comparison to other mechanisms Uses in-depth case study on TB diagnostics Summary: There are specific niches, market situations and scientific challenges where prizes are a promising alternative to grants/push mechanisms When way forward is not clear, technological obstacles In many circumstances, milestone may be best design Biotechs are most promising target Strong potential merits testing Status: Final report available online

Our Current Work Landscaping paper: Discusses the application of open source to global health in order to: speed timelines and reduce the costs of R&D, encourage more fruitful collaborations, and build a stronger shared knowledge base for future biomedical innovation. Describes existing initiatives and debates; examines key learnings Recommends actions for global health community Summary: Promise shown in the IT area not yet realized in health R&D. Through field-building activities like metrics/evaluations, active coordination, and new platforms, the potential for OS impact in global health could be tested further. Status: Final paper online April 6 th  Prizes  Open Source Innovation  Pooled Funds  Tax credits  Joint IP Management

Our Current Work Analyzes three pooled funding proposals for global health R&D:  Product Development Partnership Financing Facility (IAVI)  Industry Research Facilitation Fund (Policy Cures)  Fund for Research in Neglected Diseases (Novartis) Assesses whether a pooled fund would attract more money and whether the fund could more effectively allocate financing to projects than the current system. Based on 50 expert interviews and consultations with PDPs, donors and expert reviewers; Shared draft report for public comment. Status: Final summary of findings will be available in early May  Prizes  Open Source Innovation  Pooled Funds  Tax credits  Joint IP Management

Our Current Work Analyzes proposed tax credit to allow companies to claim 50% of non-clinical expenses in NTD research Draws on experience of previous R&D credits, cost information and initial consultations with policy makers Key question: Would U.S- based pharma firms and biotechs increase global health R&D if they benefited from a tax credit or would it subsidize existing work? Status: Draft shared for public comment; final report expected in June  Prizes  Open Source Innovation  Pooled Funds  Tax credits  Joint IP Management

Our Current Work Analysis of IP as it relates to global health R&D, specifically: To what extent is IP a barrier to R&D for different types of NTD drugs drugs? How could new forms of joint IP management (e.g. GSK and UNITAID proposals) address these barriers? Uses case studies (drugs for ARVs, TB, malaria, kinetoplasid) to understand IP barriers Stops short of a “full” assessment Status: Draft for public comment available mid/late April  Prizes  Open Source Innovation  Pooled Funds  Tax credits  Joint IP Management

Closing Thoughts Our role: Sharpen the debate through “deep dives” on select proposals. Evidence-based not advocacy. Continue connections with WHO CEWG: Openness to collaboration, commitment to transparency Open invitation: We welcome new ideas of topics to assess in 2011 and 2012