Abstract
The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 487-494 |
Number of pages | 8 |
Journal | The Lancet |
Volume | 399 |
Issue number | 10323 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 29 Jan 2022 |
Externally published | Yes |
Access to Document
Other files and links
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: The Lancet, Vol. 399, No. 10323, 29.01.2022, p. 487-494.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator
T2 - towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability
AU - Moon, Suerie
AU - Armstrong, Jana
AU - Hutler, Brian
AU - Upshur, Ross
AU - Katz, Rachel
AU - Atuire, Caesar
AU - Bhan, Anant
AU - Emanuel, Ezekiel
AU - Faden, Ruth
AU - Ghimire, Prakash
AU - Greco, Dirceu
AU - Ho, Calvin WL
AU - Kochhar, Sonali
AU - Schaefer, G. Owen
AU - Shamsi-Gooshki, Ehsan
AU - Singh, Jerome Amir
AU - Smith, Maxwell J.
AU - Wolff, Jonathan
N1 - Funding Information: All authors are members of a WHO-led ACT-A Ethics and Governance Working Group set up to advise WHO on ethics and governance issues related to its role as a partner in the ACT-A. SM reports grants paid to her institution from the WHO Regional Office for Europe, UNICEF–UNDP–WB–WHO Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Disease, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; reports paid membership with the Unitaid Proposal Review Committee; reports unpaid cochairmanship of the WHO Fair Pricing Forum; and is an unpaid member of the WHO ACT-A Governance and Ethics Working Group. JA reports paid WHO consultancy for work with the ACT-A Ethics and Governance Working Group, a paid consultancy with Wellcome, and unpaid board membership with Médecins sans Frontières Switzerland. EE declares payments, honoraria, or travel fees from Greenwall Foundation, RAND Corporation, Medical Home Network, Healthcare Financial Management Association, Ecumenical Center–UT Health, American Academy of Optometry, Associação Nacional de Hospitais Privados, National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, Optum Labs, Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, District of Columbia Hospital Association, Washington University, Goldman Sachs, Brown University, The Atlantic, McKay Lab, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Association of American Medical Colleges, American Essential Hospitals, Johns Hopkins University, National Resident Matching Program, Shore Memorial Health System, Tulane University, Oregon Health & Science University, United Health Group, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Center for Global Development, Informa, and Galien Foundation; and declares a leadership or fiduciary role in VillageMD, Oncology Analytics, Embedded Health Care, Oak HC/FT, and COVID-19 Recovery Partners. RF declares participation as a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts and the Immunization Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines. GOS reports individual funding from WHO. SK is a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization and the WHO SAGE Working Group on COVID-19 vaccines. JAS declares participating as a member of the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 vaccines. MJS reports grants paid to their institution from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number #C150-2019-11), and travel fees to attend WHO and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness Global Research and Innovation Forum. All other authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information: JA, GOS, MJS, RU, and JAS received support for time worked on the subject matter of this article: JA and GOS as consultants for WHO; MJS and RU from a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and JAS from the COVID-19 Africa Rapid Grant Fund. AB is the site principal investigator on a US National Institutes of Health grant (1U19MH113211-01) for Mental Health. BH has a postdoctoral fellowship partially funded by a Center for Excellence in ELSI Research grant (5RM1HG009038-03) from the US National Human Genome Research Institute. No authors were employed or funded by the US National Institutes of Health for this work. All authors have had access to the data, research, and analysis used in the preparation of this Health Policy and jointly accept responsibility for its publication. Funding Information: JA, GOS, MJS, RU, and JAS received support for time worked on the subject matter of this article: JA and GOS as consultants for WHO; MJS and RU from a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and JAS from the COVID-19 Africa Rapid Grant Fund. AB is the site principal investigator on a US National Institutes of Health grant (1U19MH113211-01) for Mental Health. BH has a postdoctoral fellowship partially funded by a Center for Excellence in ELSI Research grant (5RM1HG009038-03) from the US National Human Genome Research Institute. No authors were employed or funded by the US National Institutes of Health for this work. All authors have had access to the data, research, and analysis used in the preparation of this Health Policy and jointly accept responsibility for its publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2022/1/29
Y1 - 2022/1/29
N2 - The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.
AB - The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122914801&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02344-8
DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02344-8
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 34902308
AN - SCOPUS:85122914801
SN - 0140-6736
VL - 399
SP - 487
EP - 494
JO - The Lancet
JF - The Lancet
IS - 10323
ER -