Gavi: vaccine alliance facing US funding cuts
The Gavi vaccine alliance, which proudly claims it vaccinates more than half the world's children against deadly and debilitating diseases, is now seemingly next in line for US funding cuts.
The United States is reportedly set to axe its funding as President Donald Trump slashes foreign aid spending -- a move Gavi says could cost more than a million lives.
Despite its important role, Gavi is little known among the general public. Here is an overview of what it does, and how US funding cuts could impact its operations and child health worldwide:
- Gavi's mission and set-up -
Founded in 2000 as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, Gavi was created to provide vaccines to developing countries.
The United States has been on board from the start, as one of the six original donor countries. It now contributes around 15 percent of the regular budget.
A public-private partnership, Gavi is a non-profit organisation based in Geneva.
It works closely with the UN health and children's agencies -- the World Health Organization and UNICEF -- the World Bank and the Gates Foundation, as well as vaccine manufacturers, research agencies and vaccine-administering countries.
Its chief executive Sania Nishtar is a medical doctor and former minister and senator in Pakistan. Former EU chief Jose Manuel Barroso chairs the board.
- Impact of US pullout -
Nishtar said the US cutting its funding would have a "disastrous impact" on global health security and potentially result in more than a million deaths from preventable diseases.
Some 97 percent of Gavi's funding goes directly to vaccination programmes, meaning that if 15 percent of the budget goes, vaccination campaigns will suffer.
Over 2026-2030, Gavi aims to protect 500 million children against 20 or so diseases -- so by its calculations, 75 million fewer children would be vaccinated.
And if around nine million lives would be saved, that number could drop by 1.3 million.
Gavi is also worried about its ability to maintain its stockpiles of vaccines against diseases like Ebola, cholera and meningitis.
- Budget and US funding -
Its budget for the 2021-2025 cycle is over $21 billion -- swelled by more than $12 billion for the Covax scheme, which Gavi co-led in response to the Covid pandemic.
Washington contributed $4 billion to Covax, and was its biggest funder.
With Covax, US regular contributions and pledges for 2021-2025 amount to $1.19 billion.
The United States has steadily increased its regular contributions to Gavi, from $48 million in 2001 to $300 million in 2024.
"US global health assistance has emphasised ending preventable child deaths through high-impact, low-cost interventions," the alliance says.
US contributions accounted for 10 percent of Gavi's funding in 2011-2015; 15 percent for 2016-2020; and 24 percent in 2021-2025, including Covax.
But excluding Covax, the United States is the third-biggest contributor to Gavi, behind the Gates Foundation and Britain, covering about 15 percent of the budget.
For the years 2026-2030, Washington made a five-year pledge of at least $1.58 billion.
- Gavi's vaccines -
Gavi supports vaccines against 20 infectious diseases, including Covid-19, Ebola, malaria, rabies, polio, cholera, typhoid and yellow fever.
Gavi says that since its inception, it has helped immunise more than 1.1 billion children in 78 lower-income countries, "preventing more than 18.8 million future deaths".
By June 2023 it had crossed the landmark of having helped provide roughly six billion vaccinations globally.
According to its latest figures, more than 69 million children were vaccinated in 2023.
The alliance says that for every dollar spent on vaccines between 2021 and 2030, $21 would be saved in healthcare costs, lost wages and lost productivity due to illness and death.
- Covid jabs role -
Gavi co-led Covax, the globally pooled Covid vaccine procurement and equitable distribution effort.
The scheme to ensure Covid vaccines reached people in poorer countries wound up in December 2023.
It delivered nearly two billion doses to 146 territories.
Gavi estimates more than 2.7 million deaths were averted by Covax in low- and middle-income countries.
rjm/jhb
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
31 minutes ago
- Medscape
Radiology Workforce Shortages Impacting Cancer Care
A chronic shortage of radiologists and oncologists is putting patients in the UK at risk, a new report found. The annual workforce census by the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) warned that the safe delivery of NHS cancer care is becoming 'increasingly impossible' due to an escalating shortfall of doctors coupled with rising demand for care. In 2024, the UK had a 29% shortfall of clinical radiologists, with regional gaps ranging from 25% in Scotland to 32% in Wales. The workforce grew by 4.7% that year — less than in 2023, when it increased by 6.3%. The college forecasts the radiologist shortfall will reach 39% by 2029. Oncology Under Strain Clinical oncologists are also in short supply, with a current 15% gap expected to rise to 19% by 2029. This is despite a 5.4% increase in the workforce in 2024—the strongest growth since 2018. The RCR reported that 23% of cancer centres were experiencing recruitment freezes, making it harder to meet growing demand. Demand Continues to Outpace Capacity The shortages threaten the government's plans to cut waiting times and improve cancer outcomes. In 2024, demand for computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grew by 8%, but workforce growth did not keep pace. Every radiology leader surveyed last year reported delays to diagnostic scans caused by staff shortages. Nine in 10 radiology team leaders reported that patients were waiting longer to start treatment, while seven in 10 expressed concern that staff shortages were putting patient safety at risk – down slightly from 85% in 2023. Chronic problems such as workforce shortages, reporting backlogs, and staff vacancies remain too high, according to Dr Robin Proctor, the RCR's m edical director responsible for professional practice and clinical radiology. Consultants Leaving Earlier Staff retention is worsening, with experienced consultants leaving the NHS at younger ages. In 2024, the median age of consultant clinical radiologists leaving the NHS workforce was 50 – down from 56 in 2020. Four in five (79%) of leavers were under 60, and two in five (42%) were under 45. Clinical oncologists followed a similar trend. Their median exit age dropped to 54, from 57 in 2023 and 59 in 2022. Nearly 76% of leavers were under 60, and 26% were under 45. One consultant clinical oncologist told the college that delays in scans and treatment were resulting in missed or late cancer diagnoses. Some patients' conditions were deteriorating or reaching a stage where treatment was no longer possible. Changing Work Practices 'Working conditions and ways of working need to change if we are to address this problem and meet the growing demand for our expertise,' Proctor said. The RCR has called on the government to invest in training and recruitment. In 2024, the NHS spent an estimated £325 million on temporary radiology staff. The cost of outsourcing had doubled since before the COVID-19 pandemic and had surged by almost a quarter in the past year. The RCR estimated that increasing radiology trainee numbers by 50% could eliminate three-quarters of the current shortfall and save the NHS £460 million over the next 10 years. 'Patients are being failed by a chronic lack of radiologists and oncologists,' said RCR president Dr Katharine Halliday. 'The longer we delay action, the worse it gets,' she added.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘NHS says I'm too big for surgery — now I'm spending my pension on weight-loss jabs'
With every step she takes, 72-year-old Sue Smith is in agony. The retired NHS clinician has been on the waiting list for a knee replacement for four years and walks, she says, as though her leg is broken. Despite her daily battle with pain, Ms Smith has been repeatedly denied surgery — because she is obese. But she has also been given no help by the NHS to lose weight, as waiting lists for such programmes soar. She is now forking out hundreds of pounds per month to pay for a weight-loss injection so she can have the operation she so desperately needs. Speaking to The Independent, Ms Smith — who has physically deteriorated so dramatically that she now uses a mobility scooter — said: 'I'm not lazy. I want my life back, but I'm stuck in a vicious cycle of trying to lose weight for this operation. I'm 72 years old now and am desperate for a knee replacement. 'What will they do — wait until I can't walk at all? Or I fall over and break my leg?' The Independent revealed last week that obese patients are being taken off waiting lists for life-changing hip and knee replacement surgery and being refused referrals as the NHS cuts costs. National guidelines make clear that weight should not be used to restrict patients' access to joint replacement surgery. But research has revealed more than a third of NHS areas are blocking patient access based on their body mass index (BMI). Ms Smith, who suffers from osteoarthritis, said she was told before the Covid outbreak that she needed an operation. At that time, she was fitter and slimmer and may have been eligible for the procedure, but was instead treated with steroids and physiotherapy. During the coronavirus lockdowns, the former NHS speech and language therapist struggled to maintain an active lifestyle. She was referred again for the operation in 2020 but was turned down — because her BMI was 43 — and told to lose weight. Her GP attempted to refer her for the operation three more times, but she was rejected on each occasion because of her size. Years later, with a BMI of 42, she remains above the threshold which Maidstone and Tonbridge Wells hospital set for her to be allowed an operation, she told The Independent. She said: 'The only way forward for me is to get down to this fantasy weight. I just want a knee replacement so I can exercise normally.' But Ms Smith is yet to receive any specialist weight management support from the NHS. She was finally referred for support services in January 2025 — more than four years after she was first told she could not have her operation due to weight — but was told the wait was at least 18 weeks. She is still waiting and has not heard when she will get an appointment. The Independent revealed that, in some areas, patients are waiting years for access to NHS weight loss management services. Desperate to get her operation, Ms Smith sought to get weight-loss jabs through the NHS. But, in another blow, she was told by her GP that they could not prescribe it. Under current rules, which are tightly controlling the use of such jabs, only specialist weight-loss management services can prescribe these drugs. Ms Smith has paid around £1,000 since February to have the weight loss jab Mounjaro privately, which she said has helped her to lose 18 pounds. She said: 'I get a pension from the NHS, it's about £200 a month, so really, I'm using that for this injection. I really want to have my knees done so I can move forward. I've had to buy a mobility scooter, which I don't use every day, but I have to sometimes. I don't want to be in it; I never wanted to have one. I only use it when I have to, which is once a week... It's awful, I just feel like a lesser being.' Ms Smith said that, following a recent X-ray, her GP told her knees are 'worn out.' Initially, Ms Smith said she only needed one knee replacement, however, the wait has led to her now needing surgery on both. A spokesperson for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust said: 'We understand how upsetting it can be for anyone living with ongoing pain, and our teams are committed to ensuring patients receive the best possible care. While we can't comment on individual cases, referrals for surgery are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and a range of clinical factors are reviewed. 'These include, but are not limited to BMI, and enable our clinicians to ensure the surgery is safe and appropriate.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
