The Pandemic Agreement is a Landmark for Public Health
What exactly will the agreement do?
In a nutshell, 124 countries have pledged to prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics. The countries that formally ratify the agreement will be bound to uphold a number of commitments including investing in health infrastructures, sharing intellectual property, and engaging in technology transfer.
One of the biggest benefits promises to be the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System. This will require U.N. member states to share information and data about potential pandemic viruses, including sequencing of new viruses or variants, as well as share relevant vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostic technologies. Vaccine manufacturers in participating countries will be expected to provide 20% of pandemic vaccines in real time to the WHO to distribute globally, including to poorer countries and those most in need of them. Of these vaccines, member countries will donate 10% of them for free.
Such an arrangement would have saved many lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first few years, the unequal access to vaccines was one of the biggest challenges, with one study finding that up to half the COVID-19 deaths in many lower income countries could have been avoided with a more equitable supply of vaccines.
Read More: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: Global-Health Architect
Conspicuously absent from the agreement is the U.S., which has historically played a key role in global health, from HIV/AIDS to malaria and beyond. Although 11 countries abstained from voting, the U.S.'s omission due to its decision to withdraw from the WHO is notable. COVID-19 taught us that the health of people on the other side of the world is inexorably tied to our own. Isolationism doesn't work when it comes to infectious disease. Even countries that took the most drastic measures to contain COVID-19, like China, eventually succumbed to rapid and extensive spread of the virus when they relaxed international travel or strict lockdowns and social-distancing measures. Preventing the next pandemic will require us to ensure that all countries, including low- and middle-income ones, have the necessary resources to prevent outbreaks from happening and to quash them before they spread.
The agreement also proves that multilateralism and a desire for global cooperation are still shared goals among most countries. Some critics of the agreement, including U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, have argued that it would be a threat to national sovereignty or freedom, in that it would compromise countries' ability to make pandemic-related health policy decisions. This is not the case. The agreement states that it 'does not prejudice the sovereign right' of countries to consider it in accordance with their own national constitutions.
Global agreements or treaties of this nature are rare. But when they do come about, they are far from being tokenistic documents full of legalese. Although the Pandemic Agreement is less formal and legally binding, several U.N. global treaties have already saved millions of lives. The Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, the first WHO treaty, has reduced tobacco use by one-third over the past 20 years and has saved lives with policies like indoor smoking bans.
Read More: We Are Still Not Ready for the Next Pandemic
Whilst global agreements require financial and political investment, they can also be cost-effective in the long run. The Minamata Convention, a U.N. treaty designed to reduce the effects of mercury on health and the environment, is projected to save $339 billion by 2050 in the U.S. alone.
Beyond pandemics, the agreement also urges countries to take collaborative action that will benefit people's health in myriad ways. For example, the agreement directs participating countries to 'take appropriate measures to develop, strengthen and maintain a resilient health system,' and to take into consideration the need for equity and advancing universal health coverage. Generally speaking, when COVID-19 hit, the more equitable a country's health care system, the better equipped it was to deal with the disease. Of course, better, fairer health care systems are an end in themselves; they will reduce health inequalities and improve a range of health outcomes, including non-communicable diseases.
The agreement also proposes a 'one health' approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. This takes into account the interconnected nature of human, animal, and environmental health. Although the current risk to humans is low, H5N1 avian influenza still very much has pandemic potential. A "one health' approach can help prevent and minimize spread within and across different species, and ultimately reduce the risk of further zoonotic spillover into humans. This type of approach is also important for other health challenges, from antimicrobial resistance to food safety.
The Pandemic Agreement is cause for optimism in these otherwise challenging times for global health.
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
22 minutes ago
- New York Post
Three babies die amid ‘concerning rise' of syphilis in New York — what to know about the dangerous disease
At least three babies have died of presumed congenital syphilis in New York state this year, prompting health officials to warn about the risks of the preventable infection. A pregnant woman can pass syphilis, a sexually transmitted infection, to her fetus. Left untreated, congenital syphilis can lead to miscarriage, premature birth, skeletal abnormalities, neurological problems, developmental delays, stillbirth or infant death shortly after birth. 3 There's been a 'concerning rise' in congenital syphilis cases in New York this year, state health officials said this week. HENADZY – Advertisement 'Detecting syphilis early in pregnancy with a simple blood test is important to ensure rapid diagnosis and treatment, so you have a healthy baby,' State Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said in a statement this week. New York has reported 21 cases of congenital syphilis in counties outside of NYC this year. Authorities did not disclose where the three infant deaths happened, except that they weren't in the city. There were 36 cases in the region outside of NYC last year, including five stillbirths and one infant death. Eight infant deaths presumptively linked to syphilis were recorded in the area between 2019 and 2023. Advertisement 'The highest rates we're seeing are in Native Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Hispanic populations and black populations,' Kristin Wall, an associate professor of epidemiology at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health, told ABC News about national congenital syphilis trends. 'And I think it's really important to think about access to care barriers as one of the big reasons that we're seeing these increasing rates in certain populations.' 3 A newborn in 1963 displays signs of congenital syphilis. Getty Images Unsurprisingly, there has been a 'concerning' rise in infectious syphilis cases among female New York residents, contributing to a nationwide surge. Advertisement Researchers have speculated that the increase could be due to decreased condom use, a disruption in healthcare routines because of the COVID-19 pandemic, inadequate sex education and disparities in access to testing and screening services. New York officials observed that substance use and hepatitis C were notable threads throughout congenital syphilis cases in the state. Last year, New York implemented a requirement for syphilis screening during the third trimester. Advertisement Pregnant women must now be tested for syphilis at their first prenatal appointment, in their third trimester (between weeks 28 and 32) and at delivery. Penicillin is the recommended treatment for syphilis, though some people may be allergic. In those cases, desensitization may be necessary. Unfortunately, there's been a nationwide penicillin shortage for months, compounding syphilis concerns. 3 A syphilis rash often appears as reddish-brown spots on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. Stock Media Labs – Syphilis is spread by vaginal, anal or oral sex. Symptoms typically emerge 10 to 90 days after exposure, starting with a painless sore that appears at the site where the bacterium Treponema pallidum entered the body. The sore can heal on its own in three to six weeks, even as the infection persists. In the next stage of infection, symptoms can include a rash, fever, fatigue, sore throat, swollen lymph nodes and hair loss. Advertisement Syphilis is typically diagnosed with a blood test. New York's health department reminded residents that they have access to at-home testing options for sexually transmitted infections. If not addressed, syphilis can devastate the brain, heart and nervous system, leading to blindness, paralysis and even death.
Epoch Times
24 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
RFK Jr. Says He's Not Running for President in 2028
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Aug. 15 said he will not be running for president in 2028 and that he is loyal to President Donald Trump. Kennedy said on X that lobbyists are trying 'to drive a wedge between President Trump and me, hoping to thwart our team from dismantling the status quo and advancing POTUS' Make America Healthy Again agenda.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Hospital at home treatment is working — Congress must now give it a future
During my (Zain's) last year of medical school, I took care of a 70-year-old woman who was admitted for a mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. She was requiring slightly more oxygen than she was typically on at home and felt short of breath. She began recovering quite well during the first day of her hospital stay — stable, walking short distances and excited to go home. However, she wasn't yet ready to be discharged without any oversight. The typical next step would be to keep her in the hospital another night, continuing her exposure to the risks of inpatient medicine: hospital-acquired infection, exhaustion from the persistent monitor beeps and flashes, and another night away from the comfort of her family. However, this time was different. Instead of another inpatient night, she and her family were approached by the health system's Hospital at Home coordinator with what seemed a radical idea: the opportunity to continue her inpatient-level medical care at home, with appropriate clinical supervision. A pulse oximeter, blood pressure cuff, and tablet for virtual monitoring were delivered to her home that afternoon. A nurse visited twice daily to check vitals and administer medications, and a physician conducted a video check-in each morning. Her labs were drawn at home and her care team was on call 24/7. She was given the opportunity to heal in the comfort of her own home — and it worked. This patient's story represents the promise of hospital at home — a model of care that delivers inpatient-level treatment inside of a patient's home. A homage to home visits by physicians a century ago so richly depicted in literature and film, contemporary technology has enabled a new version of care in the comfort of patients' homes. Hospital at home has been shown to be safer for eligible patients. Eligible patients enrolled in hospital at home saw reduced mortality rates and fewer hospital-acquired infections across the board. A Mount Sinai study found hospital at home patients were nearly 50 percent less likely to experience a hospital readmission. Hospital at home also has the added benefit of reduced health care costs for the patient. But, Congress has to act — otherwise the program is at risk. The current expansion of the hospital at home model began out of necessity. In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Acute Hospital Care at Home waiver. It allowed hospitals to deliver full inpatient care to patients at home while still receiving Medicare payment under the usual Diagnosis-Related Group system — key to generating inpatient capacity when such high demands were placed on it. It also protected non-COVID-19 patients from potential infections. This emergency waiver offered hospitals a lifeline during the height of the pandemic — but it also revealed a sustainable care model with long-term potential. In December 2022 — when the initial waiver was set to expire — Congress extended it for an additional two years as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. It was extended again until 2024 in the American Relief Act. Now, the CMS waiver was extended until Sept. 30 as part of continuing resolutions passed earlier this year. Importantly, key legislation was introduced in the previous 118th Congress and, recently, the 119th: the Hospital Inpatient Services Modernization Act. These bipartisan bills will extend the Acute Hospital Care at Home waiver and lay the foundation for a more permanent regulatory framework. They expand eligibility, standardize oversight and give CMS the tools to collect data and evaluate long-term research outcomes. This bill should be debated, passed and signed — quickly. With the increased proportion of older Americans, our health care system continues to face added stresses at all levels. However, without legislative action, the entire program could vanish in September 2025 when the temporary waiver expires. Apart from large academic institutions with established programs, hospitals are unlikely to have the resources to invest in home-based care infrastructure without the waiver for reimbursements in place. The cost for smaller hospitals to implement telemonitoring systems and mobile nursing fleets is substantial, especially with an uncertain policy environment. This would have negative effects on especially rural communities, that already face significant health challenges and issues accessing appropriate care. A stable regulatory framework is the minimum needed to realize this model's full potential. Congress must pass the Hospital Inpatient Services Modernization Act and build a pathway toward a permanent policy solution. The data is compelling, the infrastructure is growing, and the need is real. Hospital at home is modernizing medicine, and it's time for legislation to catch up. Hospital at home has already proven it can work — what we need now is the political will to let it thrive. Zain Khawaja is an emergency medicine physician at Northwestern University. Manav Midha is a researcher at the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics.
