1 / 11

First Evaluation of Good Governance for Medicines Programme 2004-2012

First Evaluation of Good Governance for Medicines Programme 2004-2012. Brief Summary of Findings. Purpose of the Evaluation. To analyse experiences and lessons learnt after 8 years of implementation. Principal Findings ( 1). In Phase II and III countries:

erling
Download Presentation

First Evaluation of Good Governance for Medicines Programme 2004-2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. First Evaluation of Good Governance for Medicines Programme2004-2012 Brief Summary of Findings

  2. Purpose of the Evaluation • To analyse experiences and lessonslearntafter 8 years of implementation

  3. Principal Findings (1) In Phase II and III countries: • Improvedmedicinesprocurement • Revisedpharmaceuticallawsand regulations • Increasedtransparency in registration and licensing • Improved management of conflict of interest • More public information on medicinespolicy and governance

  4. Principal Findings (2) • Increasedawareness about impact of weakgovernance, includingunethicalbehaviour, on country capacity to achieveuniversalaccess • Increasedcommitment to create and sustaintransparency in key stages of the medicineschain • Increased international awareness • Acknowledged value of 3 phase methodology • Value for money

  5. Observation In some countries GGM processisstrongly country ownedand driven. Othersremaindependent on WHO support. This has implications for WHO skills, capacities and resources.

  6. Lessonslearnt (1) Increasedvulnerability due to: • Inability to control medicines promotion • Weakpolicy base and lack of operationalprocedures on medicines registration • Lack of formalcriteria to guide selection of members of key committeese.g. medicinesselection • Lack of public access to information about medicineslegislation, regulations and writtenprocedures

  7. Lessonslearnt (2) Factorsthatpromote good implementation: • High national priority to tackling corruption includingtangible support athighestpoliticallevels • Intersectoralmechanisms for improving good governance, includingministry of finance • Dedicated GGM management group comprising senior stakeholderrepresentatives • WHO support specificto country context, benchmarkingprogress and sharing lessons

  8. Lessonslearnt (3) • GGM is about strenghtheningsystems and reducingvulnerabilitythroughincreasedtransparency and promotingethicalconduct. • The GGM methodology: • Engages stakeholders • Increasesawareness • Stimulates dialogue • Identifies problems

  9. Towardsnext phase of GGM (1) • GGM experienceshouldinform future WHO work on strengtheningtransparency and institutionalintegrity • It shouldbecome an integral component of WHO action to promoteuniversalcoverage

  10. (2) Implications WHO must: • Complete unfinishedwork, especially to develop impact indicators for monitoring and evaluation • Establishstrong and consistent staff and budgetary support across 3 levels of the organization

  11. (3) Dialogue withpartners • Evaluation showedpartnerinterest in GGM but wanted to know more e.g. throughregular updates • Widen remit to includeprivatesector • Opportunities to use GGM tools more widelye.g. in the widerhealthsector, for riskassessment • More workneeded to measureeffectiveness

More Related