. "Involving the U.S. Public and Private Sectors in the CVI." The Children's Vaccine Initiative: Continuing Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1995.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
The Children’s Vaccine Initiative: Continuing Activities: A Summary of Two Workshops Held September 12–13 and October 25–26, 1994
Involving the U.S. Public and Private Sectors in the CVI
INTRODUCTION
Public- and private-sector participants in this workshop heard a number of interesting and, in some cases, provocative presentations. Speakers addressed the role of the United States in the Children ’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI); the implications of the new United Nations Children’s Fund vaccine procurement strategy; the history of and prospects for differential pricing of U.S.-made vaccines; and the transfer of vaccine technology to the developing world. Consensus was neither sought, nor obtained, on any particular point. Still, the level of honest exchange helped to illuminate, if not completely eliminate, certain areas of misunderstanding.
A number of key ideas emerged from the presentations and resulting dialogue. First, the ability of U.S. vaccine manufacturers to rely on multi-tier, or differential, pricing of vaccines will be critical to their participation in the CVI. Second, the development of markets for vaccine in the developing world (through such efforts as the Vaccine Independence Initiative) will make it more likely that U.S. vaccine and biotechnology firms will decide to sell products in these regions. Third, the U.S. Vaccines for Children initiative, because it imposes a price cap on the current set of childhood vaccines administered in the United States, may reduce industry investment in research on new and improved vaccines. Fourth, efforts at vaccine technology transfer often falter because they fail to take into account the needs and capabilities of developing-country manufacturers. Finally, a strengthening of global public-sector vaccine manufacturing capability may be a key ingredient to a comprehensive approach to vaccine technology transfer.
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole. Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
The Children’s Vaccine Initiative: Continuing Activities: A Summary of Two Workshops Held September 12–13 and October 25–26, 1994
Involving the U.S. Public and Private Sectors in the CVI
INTRODUCTION
Public- and private-sector participants in this workshop heard a number of interesting and, in some cases, provocative presentations. Speakers addressed the role of the United States in the Children ’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI); the implications of the new United Nations Children’s Fund vaccine procurement strategy; the history of and prospects for differential pricing of U.S.-made vaccines; and the transfer of vaccine technology to the developing world. Consensus was neither sought, nor obtained, on any particular point. Still, the level of honest exchange helped to illuminate, if not completely eliminate, certain areas of misunderstanding.
A number of key ideas emerged from the presentations and resulting dialogue. First, the ability of U.S. vaccine manufacturers to rely on multi-tier, or differential, pricing of vaccines will be critical to their participation in the CVI. Second, the development of markets for vaccine in the developing world (through such efforts as the Vaccine Independence Initiative) will make it more likely that U.S. vaccine and biotechnology firms will decide to sell products in these regions. Third, the U.S. Vaccines for Children initiative, because it imposes a price cap on the current set of childhood vaccines administered in the United States, may reduce industry investment in research on new and improved vaccines. Fourth, efforts at vaccine technology transfer often falter because they fail to take into account the needs and capabilities of developing-country manufacturers. Finally, a strengthening of global public-sector vaccine manufacturing capability may be a key ingredient to a comprehensive approach to vaccine technology transfer.
