WHO, the Global Fund, and medical malpractice in malaria treatment

In theory, the GFATM's Technical Review Panel should block proposals like this, but as the evidence shows, it often approves ineffective drugs for funding. For example, the panel approved Uganda's GFATM proposal with praise for "strategies based on best practices", when in fact the malaria treatment proposed (chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine) is very plainly "not recommended" by WHO's experts.29,36 Such decisions seem puzzling, until one realises that the Technical Review Panel is not actually a "technical" review panel. The four malaria reviewers on the Technical Review Panel are selected by a points-based system, in which "technical knowledge . . . and ability to judge whether proposals are . . . scientifically sound" count for only 22% of that decision.37 By contrast, "familiarity with international processes and . . . partnerships" and "familiarity with multisectoral approaches" count for twice as much (44%), even though it is hard to know what those criteria really mean.