Breakthroughs Blog: CDC

The 2022 midterm elections on November 8 were expected to deliver a decisive power flip from Democrats to Republicans. However, as the new landscape comes into focus, it appears that Democrats will hold the Senate, and Republicans are likely to win the House of Representatives by a handful of seats. These margins and the composition of new committees will determine the trajectory of global health research and development policy over the next two years.Both chambers on a knife edge splitRepublicans underperformed most analysts’ projections in both chambers. In the House, they are expected to eke into power by only a handful of seats. In the Senate—where several Republican candidates failed to overtake their competitors in close races—Democrats have retained control and may even net gain one seat, depending on the outcome of a special runoff election in Georgia on Tuesday, December 6, between incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock (D) and Herschel Walker (R).Implications on makeup of key committeesNext steps for both parties include electing new party leaders, which is expected to happen later this year. Following that, early next year, the parties will designate committee assignments, which will impact oversight and policymaking for the next two years of global health research. In the House, committee majorities will be determined by who holds the majority in the full House. In the Senate, if the final split is 50-50, then committees will also be evenly split. But if Senator Raphael Warnock wins his reelection in Georgia, then the Senate will be 51-49, and Democrats will take the majority on each committee with one extra seat.Though we do not yet know exactly how the committees will look next year, we do know which members from the 117th Congress will return to the 118th and which current members will be stepping down.Leadership of most committees relevant to global health research and development (R&D) are expected to remain relatively stable with top Democrats and Republicans trading positions as chairs and ranking members. Some exceptions include Representative Karen Bass, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, who is stepping down in pursuit of becoming the next mayor of Los Angeles and Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), ranking member of the House Appropriations State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, who may become chair of the subcommittee or may be replaced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL).Among the members currently serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who have retained their Congressional seats are Reps. Susan Wild (D-PA), Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Young Kim (R-CA), and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA). Members who were defeated include Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) and Steve Chabot (R-OH). Some other members of Congress on relevant appropriating and authorizing committees to global health research who are retiring or lost their primaries earlier this year include Reps. Albio Sires (D-NJ), David Price (D-NC), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Jaime Herrera-Beutler (R-WA) and Fred Upton (R-MI). In the Senate:There were no major losses among incumbents on the Foreign Relations Committee; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee; or the Appropriations Labor, Health, nor on the Human Services, Education, and Related Programs (LHHS) and State and Foreign Operations subcommittees. Some big names will be retiring, including Sens. Richard Shelby (R-AL), ranking member on the Appropriations Committee; Roy Blunt (R-MO), ranking member on the LHHS Subcommittee; Richard Burr (R-NC), ranking member on the HELP Committee; and Rob Portman (R-OH).Some leadership changes are expected. Sen. Patty Murray, previous chair of the Senate HELP Committee, is expected to become the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate HELP Committee will likely be led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) or Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). The Senate LHHS subcommittee may be led by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Both 2022 GHTC Innovating for Impact award winners, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) retained their seats.  A potentially challenging landscapeWith Democrats elected to retain control of the Senate in the 118th Congress, leadership in both parties of the current Congress may be more interested in passing an end-of-year funding package so that the 118th Congress can begin with a clean slate. The same may not be true next year, though. If Republicans have a slim majority in the House as projected, it could empower more conservative members to dangle threats to regular governance, such as annual passage of an appropriations package, as bargaining chips—a threat some members have already referenced. Such a dynamic may also lead to hardball negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, a final agreement on which is due in July of next year. Ultimately, these dynamics could limit the potential for global health R&D funding growth in the next two years, despite the need for greater resources. Beyond the funding picture, if Republicans win control the House, they plan to increase oversight over many US government agencies, including several public health and research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Oversight over the executive branch is a critical function of Congress, but aggressive oversight can also threaten the basic functioning of these agencies as staff efforts are redirected. This could ultimately impact the pace of progress for global health research and science in general.Looking aheadGlobal health R&D has historically received bipartisan support, yet this will be the first Congress to be seated after the COVID-19 pandemic, a global health catastrophe that has provoked some policymakers to question the value of certain types of research and the global health status quo. The results of this election are still being finalized, but regardless of who is in charge, there will remain opportunities for crafting and passing good policy. Whether progress happens and at what pace will largely depend on the ability of advocates to make the bipartisan case for why global health R&D is a force multiplier for creating a healthier and safer future for Americans and all global citizens.  

Interested in more global health innovation news? Every week GHTC scours media reports worldwide to deliver essential global health R&D news and content to your inbox. Sign up now to receive our weekly R&D News Roundup email. IAVI and Moderna are preparing to launch the first in-Africa trial for an mRNA HIV vaccine candidate, the organizations announced last week. The phase 1 vaccine trial will take place at the Center for Family Health Research in Kigali, Rwanda, and The Aurum Institute in Tembisa, South Africa. The vaccine candidate, mRNA-1644, uses Moderna’s mRNA technology to deliver a specific class of B cells needed to develop broadly neutralizing antibodies to fight HIV infection. mRNA technology could accelerate the development of a safe, effective, affordable, and durable HIV vaccine, according to IAVI, and the trial will build on progress in HIV vaccine research using the combination of Moderna's proven mRNA vaccine technology and a novel HIV vaccine approach developed by IAVI and Scripps Research, and draw on more than two decades of collaboration with scientific centers of excellence in sub-Saharan Africa, supported by the US Agency for International Development.A US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory panel on Thursday voted to recommend children between the age of 5 and 11 should be offered a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at least five months after receiving their second dose. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky then endorsed the panel’s recommendation, which followed authorization by the Food and Drug Administration earlier that week. In making their decision, the CDC advisors reviewed data indicating a third dose increases the antibody response from the vaccine, which should protect recipients better, at least temporarily. CDC also now recommends those who are 12 and older and immunocompromised and all people over the age of 50 should receive a second booster, at least four months after their first dose.Clinical research in the United States faces a “critical shortcoming” when it comes to diversity, a new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine stresses. While diversity has become an increasingly important priority, racial and ethnic minority populations continue to be left behind in research, leaving a large portion of the US population—and those that often face the greatest health challenges—less able to benefit from discoveries, because they are not adequately represented in clinical studies. Members of the LGBTQIA+ community, older adults, pregnant and lactating individuals, and people with disabilities are also among the populations frequently left out. The report offers recommendations to increase the inclusion of these groups in order to advance equitable research—described as a clinical trial population that matches the demographics of the disease being studied.

Interested in more global health innovation news? Every week GHTC scours media reports worldwide to deliver essential global health R&D news and content to your inbox. Sign up now to receive our weekly R&D News Roundup email. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine’s effectiveness among children ages 5 to 11 wanes over time but continues to protect against the most severe outcomes, according to new real-world evidence released last week. Analysis from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, summarizing data from ten states, suggested that while vaccine effectiveness faded during omicron and generally decreases relative to the time since vaccination, the vaccine was protective against hospitalization and death in 5-to-17-year-olds, even after omicron emerged. A preprint study by the New York State Department of Health, also published last week, showed a substantial decline in protection among the younger age group in the state, including a significant decline in protection against hospitalizations. The new data comes amid developments involving vaccines for children under 5, which the US Food and Drug Administration plans to wait to review until data on third doses is available.The Biden administration plans to share government-backed COVID-19 technology with the World Health Organization (WHO) to help bolster access to medicines in low- and middle-income countries. The technologies, developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), would be licensed to the WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool as well as sublicensed through the United Nations-backed Medicines Patent Pool. Details on which technologies would be made available through the deal are still being determined, but the policy is not intended to apply to vaccines and therapeutics in the US market developed by private companies. Sharing NIH-devised technologies is meant to allow other countries to replicate the manufacturing process and therefore more quickly boost the global stockpile of pandemic supplies.On Wednesday, a WHO panel backed the use of Merck & Co., Inc.’s COVID-19 antiviral pill for high-risk patients. The recommendation, based on new data from six clinical trials involving 4,796 patients, conditionally endorses the pill, molnupiravir, for use among patients with non-severe disease who are at high risk of hospitalization. This could include immunocompromised individuals, the unvaccinated, older people, and those with chronic diseases. No recommendation has been made for use of the pill among patients with severe or critical illness, as there is no trial data for the group. The WHO panel is also preparing recommendations for Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, Paxlovid.

Many experts have speculated that 2022 could bring the end of this acute stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. But if this proves true, what our new normal will be, and whether we’ll be better prepared for future crises, will depend on the decisions that our policymakers make in the months ahead. As 2022 begins, here are some of the top policy issues GHTC will be tracking.1. Will we achieve targets to vaccinate the world and what curveballs will COVID-19 still throw our way?What trajectory the pandemic will take in 2022 will depend in significant part on how successful efforts are to vaccinate the world. Last year, world leaders coalesced around a goal of vaccinating at least 70 percent of the world’s population by mid-2022, with an interim goal of vaccinating at least 40 percent of people in each country by the end of 2021. But a number of cascading challenges—from unexpected manufacturing disruptions with key suppliers to surging demand for booster shots in wealthy nations—slowed global efforts. As the year drew to a close, more than 90 countries missed the interim target, with many of the poorest nations in sub-Saharan Africa stuck at single digit vaccination rates. In a glimmer of positive news, the COVAX global vaccine facility delivered a record number of vaccine doses in December, hopefully setting a positive trend for the months ahead. Yet it remains clear there is much lost ground to make up as the year kicks off. Reaching the 70 percent target will require a significant influx of resources to boost manufacturing and overcome on-the-ground delivery and administration challenges, as well as continue research to respond to variants and deliver second generation vaccines better suited for distribution in low-resource settings. While leaders of the world’s richest nations have pledged their support for this global goal, few additional commitments of resources have materialized and nearly three-quarters of promised dose donations have yet to be shipped as of December. GHTC will be watching closely in 2022—particularly as President Joe Biden is expected to host a follow-up COVID-19 summit in March—to see whether the world embraces new urgency and accountability to close these gaps. As we’ve seen with the delta and omicron variants, COVID-19 could also still throw some unexpected curveballs our way that could upend existing efforts. 2. Will reams of recommendations turn into meaningful multilateral reforms?One might call 2021 the year of recommendations as several eminent groups, including the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, and the G20 High Level Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, issued reports recommending actions to reduce the world’s vulnerability to pandemic threats. This included several significant proposed reforms to the existing multilateral architecture, including establishing a new Global Health Threats Council to elevate preparedness to the highest level of political leadership, creating a new financial intermediary fund or financing facility at the World Bank to support countries in strengthening their preparedness capacity and to finance surge response during a crisis, making permanent a structure like the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) to support end-to-end product development for epidemic threats, and advancing a pandemic treaty or framework convention on health preparedness to reform or build upon existing International Health Regulations. Now it remains to be seen whether 2022 will turn into a year of action to make these reforms a reality. GHTC has long advocated that research and development (R&D) is an essential pillar of health preparedness. As these discussions advance, we will be monitoring closely to see how ACT-A evolves and pushing for any such international agreement or financial fund to support countries in strengthening their research and manufacturing capacity.3. Will the US COVID-19 spending spigot still flow in 2022?During the first year of the pandemic, policymakers in Congress seemed willing to throw unlimited money at the problem, passing a series of huge emergency spending bills to finance response efforts and cushion the pandemic’s reverberating economic impacts in the United States—though money for the international response was slower to arrive and lower than advocates and experts recommended. Now that we’re nearly two years into this crisis, many are asking whether Congress has hit pandemic spending fatigue or whether the spigot will still flow. The last major emergency supplemental funding package—the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)—was signed in March 2021, more than ten months ago. But the need for additional resources seems as acute as ever as 2022 begins. On the domestic front, omicron is overwhelming US hospital systems and fueling increased demand for tests and boosters, while on the global front, reports are the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is fast running out of resources, as it has already spent or earmarked most of the money it received through ARPA to support global vaccination and response efforts—just as a significant influx of vaccine doses are finally arriving in partner countries and the international response is entering its most operationally intensive phase yet.Political observers are now watching closely whether Congress will put together a new emergency funding package, possibly pairing it with the regular fiscal year (FY) 2022 spending bills that it must pass before the continuing resolution now funding the government expires on February 18. As these talks advance, global health advocates are pushing for any such package to include substantial resources to replenish the coffers of USAID, the State Department, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to lead the international response.4. How exactly will the United States build back better for global health innovation?While congressional policymakers spent 2021 largely in emergency response mode, as the new year begins, many are looking to the future of how we can strengthen US agency programs for health preparedness, as well as build upon the research successes and gaps illuminated by COVID-19. Several pieces of legislation are expected to advance this year, which could significantly transform our health innovation infrastructure.For example, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is formulating a new pandemic preparedness bill that will look at retooling and refining the capabilities of several Health and Human Services agencies, potentially including the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). This federal agency, which is responsible for developing medical countermeasures against health threats, went from obscurity to a household name during the pandemic as it was entrusted with an influx of emergency funding more than 40 times its annual appropriated levels to advance COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and tests. GHTC has long advocated for Congress to provide dedicated funding for BARDA to grow its R&D activities for naturally occurring health threats, including emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic influenza. Much of the agency’s work on EIDs has been funded via unsustainable “boom and bust” cycles of emergency funding appropriated only after a crisis has begun. This pandemic preparedness legislation opens fresh opportunity for Congress to authorize such a permanent funding line to fuel sustainable, proactive preparedness research.Additionally, Representatives Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Fred Upton (R-MI) are advancing bipartisan legislation dubbed Cures 2.0, a follow-up to their 2016 21st Century Cures Act, which among other things would authorize a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, this new federal agency would seek to speed the development of medical innovations by funding high-risk, high-reward projects not likely to be advanced by traditional commercial research activities. Given this goal, the agency’s work could encompass research on poverty-related and neglected diseases, a recognized area of market failure. But at the moment, ARPA-H is more of rough concept than a fleshed-out proposal. As Cures 2.0 advances, much will need to be worked out as to what the agency’s research scope will actually include; whether it will be housed within the National Institutes of Health as President Biden has proposed or as a separate entity as some stakeholders have advocated for; and how much money congressional appropriators will be willing to pony up for this new unproven agency.Alongside these legislative efforts, GHTC has also recently unveiled a proposal for the creation of a new catalytic fund at USAID to drive global health innovation, called the Supporting Innovative Global Health Technologies (SIGHT) Fund. Such a fund would allow USAID to supercharge its existing work to advance inclusive innovations for low-resource settings, as well as reverse a declining trend in the agency’s spending on R&D as a proportion of its global health budget. As the year continues, GHTC will seek to advance this proposal with policymakers in Congress and the agency.5. Will calls to decolonize global health be codified into policy and practice?Calls to decolonize global health gained steam last year as the world bore witness to the gross inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines and other tools between rich and poor nations, and here in the United States, the Black Lives Matter movement forced Americans to reckon with our nation’s history of racism past and present. While many leaders in the global health and development field now recognize the need to correct long-standing power imbalances rooted in the colonial era, individual organizations—from nongovernmental organizations to international institutions to development agencies—are grappling with how to translate this goal into policy and practice. Here in the United States, new USAID Administrator Samantha Power, in one of her first public addresses in November, laid out her vision for a new era of “inclusive development” at USAID. This included targets to direct at least a quarter of USAID funding to local partners within the next four years and by the end of the decade to have 50 percent of USAID programming have in place “local communities in the lead” who are responsible for codesigning, implementing, and evaluating programs. As 2022 continues, the global health community will be watching closely how Administrator Power’s vision leads to concrete changes in programs and practices at the agency.6. Will funding for other global health areas grow to match evolving needs?Much has been documented about how the COVID-19 pandemic has set back progress in other areas of global health, from disrupting routine immunization programs and reliable access to HIV and tuberculosis drugs to increasing the cost and complications of conducting research and clinical trials. The common refrain from health practitioners is that more resources are needed not just to respond directly to COVID-19, but to shore up other vital global health programs to protect fragile progress. Here in the United States, we’ll be watching whether congressional appropriators take this need to heart in 2022 as they finalize FY 2022 spending bills and begin work on FY 2023. Outside of programs focused on health security, most global health-related funding lines at the CDC, State Department, and USAID have been flat-funded in recent years, in practice decreasing their purchasing power as COVID-19 has only increased the cost of doing business. As every country worldwide is feeling the weight of the latest omicron-fueled surge, the first few days of 2022 have unfortunately felt much like “2020, two.” But as the year continues, it is our hope the pandemic will turn a corner and that policymakers will embrace lessons learned from this crisis to ultimately usher in a healthier, safer, and more equitable world for all.