Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In 2004, the Institute of Medicine concluded that a global high-level subsidy was the best way to make effective antimalarial drugs--currently, artemisinin-combination therapies (ACTs)--widely available at affordable prices and at the same time substantially delay the emergence and spread of artemisinin-resistant strains of falciparum malaria. The subsidy would be available to manufacturers of all ACTs meeting pre-specified efficacy, safety, and quality criteria. Buyers would pay very low prices, allowing drugs to flow through existing channels, with the aim of reaching consumers at a similar price to chloroquine, the most frequently used (although no longer effective) malaria drug. Unsubsidized artemisinin monotherapies would be more expensive than subsidized ACTs (co-formulations), thereby largely eliminating their use through market forces. Conditions favoring the emergence of artemisinin-resistant malaria would be greatly reduced. The global high-level subsidy is a powerful idea that is moving from economic concept to pragmatic reality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gelband et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: