Subject: FW: Urgent Establishment of a Global Health Security Challenge Fund to Finance and Leverage Outbreak Preparedness Investments
From: Amiran Gamkrelidze <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 06:12:41 +0000

ეს ქალბატონი ჩემი კარგი ნაცნობია. ობამას მთავრობაში გლობალური ჯანმრთელობის უსაფრთხოების მოძრაობის ერთ-ერთი მთავარი ინიციატორი და შემოქმედი იყო ამ ტიპის საერთაშორისო
ფონდის შექმნის იდეა  დიდი ხანია ტრიალებს გლობალურ ჯანმრთელობაში, რადგან ხვდებიან, რომ ასეთმა ეპიდემიებმა და შესაძლო პანდემიებმა შეიძლება უფრო დიდი ზიანი მოუტანოს კაცობრიობას ვიდრე შიდსმა,ტუბერკულოზმა და მალარიამ ერთად აღებულმა, რომელთათვის გლობალური ფონდი
შექმნეს საკმაოდ დაგვიანებით.

სასურველია, რომ ჩვენთვის მეტი მზადყოფნისთვის ამ ტიპის პროგრამა/ფონდი ჰქონდეს ქვეყანას, რომ თანდათანობით გაძლიერდეს მზადყოფნის რეჟიმი.

პატივისცემით,

ამირანი

ამირან გამყრელიძე,
მედ. მეცნ. დოქტორი, პროფესორი

დაავადებათა კონტროლისა და საზოგადოებრივი

ჯანმრთელობის ეროვნული ცენტრი

გენერალური დირექტორი

კახეთის გზატკეცილი 99, თბილისი 0198

ტელ.: +995 32 2192599

Email:
[email-masked]

www.ncdc.ge

From: Beth Cameron [mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:41 PM

To: Amanda Glassman ([email-masked]); Carolyn Reynolds; Beth Cameron

Cc: Amanda Glassman ([email-masked]); Carolyn Reynolds; Beth Cameron

Subject: Urgent Establishment of a Global Health Security Challenge Fund to Finance and Leverage Outbreak Preparedness Investments

Importance: High

Dear Colleagues,

As the coronavirus outbreak continues, we invite you to
consider the proactive, urgent establishment of a Global Health Security Challenge
Fund.  Read our Op-Ed here
and below.  Please see additional details regarding the potential for such an instrument (below), including a very important parameter: We recognize that there are multiple parallel funds that are directed to specific diseases and conditions in low-income
countries, and that these multiple instruments can create administrative burden and incoherence in low income country health sectors.  While designed to achieve preparedness goals, the proposed GHS Challenge Fund is also proposed to minimize such redundancies
and – to the extent possible – leverage existing mechanisms for health sector and governance, including at the World Bank.

We propose the GHS Challenge Fund should be a Leaders’ deliverable for upcoming G-7 and/or G-20 meetings and would:

Prioritize support for those countries most at risk, with per capita income determining eligibility for specific financing levels;

Pool and leverage resources from existing financing institutions, such as the World Bank, bilateral development agencies such as USAID and the United Kingdom Department for
International Development, and international philanthropies to “match” commitments from governments

Link investments to national health security action plans and measurable progress.

Possible Pre-requisites for the GHS Challenge Fund could include:

o
Funding provided by the IDA/World Bank in cooperation with the GHS Challenge Fund for identified health security improvements should go onto the country’s national budget.

o
To be eligible to use the GHS Challenge Fund, countries should have in place identified benchmarks for measurable improvement and a National Action Plan for Health Security. Consider few, easiest-to-measure
indicators.

o
Domestic or other donor health security resources must be leveraged as a condition of award, on a sliding scale.

o
Countries must demonstrate budget transparency and be able to track health security funding and improvements over time.

o
A mechanism for the Challenge Fund to address preparedness in fragile countries, and countries that surround fragile countries, should be developed.

This concept is consistent with a number of recommendations on the urgency of pandemic preparedness financing, including from the
International Working Group on Pandemic Preparedness Financing,
the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security and the Global
Health Security Index.

Read the whole article below or
here.

Sincerely,

Beth Cameron,
Vice President for Global Biological Policy and Programs,
NTI | bio

Amanda Glassman, Executive Vice President, Center for Global Development

Carolyn Reynolds, Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies and
Distinguished Fellow, The George Institute for Global Health

From The Hill

Stop Coronavirus and the Next Epidemic by Establishing a
Health Security Fund Now

By Amanda Glassman, Carolyn Reynolds and Elizabeth Cameron

February 7, 2020

Here we go again. Five years after the devastating Ebola virus killed more than 11,000 people and wreaked economic havoc in West Africa,
the world is grappling with the threat of another deadly epidemic with the novel coronavirus.

In the wake of the 2014-16 Ebola crisis, leaders of the world’s top economies committed to help 76 countries, including many of the
world’s poorest nations, to prepare for deadly outbreaks. Yet today, most of those countries remain unprepared for the novel coronavirus.

When the G-7 meets this
June at Camp David, it should translate its words into action. It is time that the leaders of the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
United Kingdom keep their promise and partner with low-income countries, development banks, philanthropies, and private sector leaders to launch a Global Health Security Challenge Fund to make good on direct investments in preparedness.

There is a cause for serious concern. If wealthy countries with strong health systems are struggling to detect, stop, and contain
the novel coronavirus, imagine what will happen if the virus spreads rapidly in low-income or politically fragile countries. Low-income countries have weaker health systems, more vulnerable populations, challenges with proper infection prevention and control,
less access to adequate healthcare and nutrition, vulnerable supply chains, and low influenza vaccination rates.

Indeed, containing an emerging disease like the novel coronavirus in low-income countries could be the challenge of our time.

There is some good news. Several low-income countries have taken steps in the past few years to prioritize outbreak preparedness,
with support from donors like the United States government through a bump in U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding for global health security that expired last year

Also, in Ebola’s wake, the Africa
Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), supported by the United States and China, opened its doors to begin to build a regional, measurable,
continent-wide capability to stop outbreaks before they escalate. Yet these investments are only a down-payment – scaffolding to allow bricks and mortar to be laid. Failure to follow through and finish the construction, and the whole structure crashes down.

The global infrastructure for fighting outbreaks remains very fragile. Investments in health security are fragmented, piecemeal, and
not yet mapped to specific, measurable benchmarks.

Sadly, the high level of political interest we’ve seen in understanding preparedness gaps has been met with a near-total absence of
political will to finance and fill these gaps and regularly measure their improvement. With intense competing pressures, there are few incentives for low-income countries to prioritize epidemic preparedness. And compared with the global response to other health
threats like HIV/AIDS, international support for low-income countries to prevent a catastrophic pandemic remains shockingly low.

Faced with choosing between using development bank funding to address more immediate needs like roads and bridges — investments citizens
want to be made right away — and investments in disease detection and response capabilities to stop a future outbreak from spreading, leaders usually choose door number one. Who can blame them?

The novel coronavirus makes it clear that it’s past time to act.

Leaders now should immediately invest in preparedness and launch a Global Health Security Challenge Fund, such as the one recently
recommended by the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security and
the Global Health Security Index.

Here’s what should happen:

1.
Governments should urgently invest in health security now to shore up the defenses of low-income countries against the coronavirus and the inevitable
next outbreak on the horizon. For the United States, this means topping up the CDC, USAID, and Defense and State Department health security accounts, investing more in the World Health Organization, the Africa CDC, and the Global
Health Security Agenda. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation recently announced new
funding for the Africa CDC to detect and stop the coronavirus; others should follow suit in partnership with low-income countries. Advocacy is essential to make sure preparedness remains a political priority.

2.
Before or during the 2020 G-7 meeting, leaders should launch a Global Health Security Challenge Fund that will incentivize countries to make capital
investments to close their preparedness gaps.

The fund should prioritize support for those countries most at risk, with per capita income determining eligibility for specific financing
levels. This fund would pool and leverage resources from existing financing institutions, such as the World Bank, bilateral development agencies such as USAID and the United Kingdom Department for International Development, and international philanthropies
to “match” commitments from governments – to invest their capital in implementing their national health security action plans, linking payments to measurable progress.

We don’t know yet how the novel coronavirus will play out. But if this outbreak doesn’t have catastrophic consequences, the next one
easily could. And the one after that. World leaders must make good on their commitments to prevent catastrophic biological events.

As John Nkengasong, Director of the Africa CDC, said last
week: “The global health chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so a disease threat anywhere can quickly become a threat everywhere.” We cannot afford to wait.

Amanda Glassman is the executive vice president of the Center for Global Development, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C.

Carolyn Reynolds is a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Distinguished Fellow with The
George Institute for Global Health, and former vice president of policy and advocacy at PATH.

Beth Cameron is vice president for Global Biological Policy and Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Formerly, she served
as the Senior Director for Global Health Security and Biodefense on the National Security Council staff at the White House.

Elizabeth E. (Beth) Cameron, PhD

Vice President for Global Biological Policy and Programs

1776 Eye Street NW

Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20006

www.nti.org

202-296-4810

202-454-7757 (d)

202-999-5979 (m)

[email-masked]

Sign-up for NTI News