Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health: Proceedings of A Workshop

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25069 SHARE

   
Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health:

Proceedings of a Workshop
DETAILS
130 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-47434-4 | DOI 10.17226/25069
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Rachel M. Taylor and Joe Alper, Rapporteurs; Forum on Public Private
Partnerships for Global Health and Safety; Board on Global Health; Health and
Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health: Proceedings of a Workshop
Exploring Partnership
Governance in
Global Health
PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP
Rachel M. Taylor and Joe Alper, Rapporteurs
Forum on Public–Private Partnerships for Global Health and Safety
Board on Global Health
Health and Medicine Division
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This project was supported by Anheuser-Busch InBev; Becton, Dickinson and

Company; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Catholic Health Association of the
United States; ExxonMobil; Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes
of Health; General Electric; Global Health Innovative Technology Fund; Intel
Corporation; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic; Merck; Novartis Foundation; PATH;
PepsiCo; Procter & Gamble Co.; The Rockefeller Foundation; Safaricom; United
Nations Foundation; University of Notre Dame; UPS Foundation; U.S. Agency
for International Development; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Global Affairs; U.S. Department of State; U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration; and The Vitality Group. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recom-
mendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of
any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47434-4

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-47434-5
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25069
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Acad-
emies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242
or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018.

Exploring partnership governance in global health: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25069.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of

Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institu-
tion to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members
are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia
McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the char-
ter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering
to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary
contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to
advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their
peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau
is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and
advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and
inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education
and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the
study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typi-
cally include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information
gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report
has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it
represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium,
or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opin-
ions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed
by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies,
please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PLANNING COMMITTEE ON
EXPLORING PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE IN GLOBAL HEALTH1
CLARION JOHNSON (Co-Chair), Private Consultant, ExxonMobil

REGINA RABINOVICH (Co-Chair), ExxonMobil Malaria Scholar in
Residence, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
JO IVEY BOUFFORD, Immediate Past President, The New York
Academy of Medicine; Clinical Professor, New York University
College of Global Public Health
KEVIN ETTER, Director, United Parcel Service Loaned Executive
Program
LAUREN MARKS, Director, Private Sector Engagement for The U.S.
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR),
U.S. Department of State
JOHN MONAHAN, Senior Fellow and Senior Advisor for Global
Health Initiatives to the President, Georgetown University
CATE O’KANE, Independent Consultant
BT SLINGSBY, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Global
Health Innovative Technology Fund
1 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s planning commit-

tees are solely responsible for organizing the workshop, identifying topics, and choosing
speakers. The responsibility for this published Proceedings of a Workshop rests with the
workshop rapporteurs and the institution.


FORUM ON PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

FOR GLOBAL HEALTH AND SAFETY1
JO IVEY BOUFFORD (Co-Chair), Immediate Past President, The New

York Academy of Medicine; Clinical Professor, New York University
College of Global Public Health
CLARION JOHNSON (Co-Chair), Private Consultant, ExxonMobil
ANN AERTS, Head, Novartis Foundation
SIR GEORGE ALLEYNE, Director Emeritus, Pan American Health
Organization; Chancellor Emeritus, University of the West Indies
RAJESH ANANDAN, Senior Vice President, Strategic Partnerships and
UNICEF Ventures, U.S. Fund for UNICEF (until February 2018)
NATASHA BILIMORIA, Director, U.S. Strategy, Gavi, the Vaccine
Alliance
DEBORAH L. BIRX, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and U.S. Special
Representative for Global Health Diplomacy, U.S. Department of
State, The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
SIMON BLAND, Director, New York Liaison Office, UNAIDS
ROBERT BOLLINGER, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine (until December 2017)
CARA BRADLEY, Chief Corporate Engagement Officer, PATH
STEPHEN CHEGE, Director, Corporate Affairs, Safaricom
GARY M. COHEN, Executive Vice President and President, Global
Health and Development, Becton, Dickinson and Company (until
December 2017)
BRENDA D. COLATRELLA, Executive Director, Corporate
Responsibility; President, Merck Foundation; President, Merck
Patient Assistance Program Foundation, Merck & Co., Inc.
BRUCE COMPTON, Senior Director of International Outreach, Catholic
Health Association of the United States
PATRICIA DALY, Associate Vice President, Global Health, Save the
Children
KATE DODSON, Vice President for Global Health Strategy, United
Nations Foundation
JENNIFER ESPOSITO, Worldwide General Manager, Health and Life
Sciences Group, Intel Corporation
RENUKA GADDE, Vice President, Global Health, Becton, Dickinson
and Company
1 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s forums and roundta-
bles do not issue, review, or approve individual documents. The responsibility for this pub-
lished Proceedings of a Workshop rests with the workshop rapporteurs and the institution.
vii

ELAINE GIBBONS, Vice President for Global Engagement and

Communications, PATH (until March 2018)
ROGER GLASS, Director, Fogarty International Center
DANIELLE GREENBERG, Senior Director, Global R&D; Senior Fellow,
Nutrition Sciences, PepsiCo (until March 2018)
RICHARD GUERRANT, Thomas H. Hunter Professor of International
Medicine, University of Virginia (until December 2017)
TREVOR GUNN, Vice President, International Relations, Medtronic
JESSICA HERZSTEIN, Preventive Medicine Specialist
BEN HOFFMAN, Chief Medical Officer, Baker Hughes, a GE Company
(until March 2018)
JAMES JONES, Manager, Community Investment Programs, ExxonMobil
ALLISON TUMMON KAMPHUIS, Global Program Leader, Gender
Equality and the Children’s Safe Drinking Water Program, Procter
& Gamble Co.
SEEMA KUMAR, Vice President, Innovation, Global Health & Science
Policy Communication, Johnson & Johnson
MARISSA LEFFLER, Senior Strategy and Innovation Advisor, Global
Health Center for Accelerating Innovation and Impact, U.S. Agency
for International Development (until April 2018)
AMY LIN, Acting Deputy Director, Center for Innovation and Impact,
U.S. Agency for International Development
EDUARDO MARTINEZ, President and Chief Diversity & Inclusion
Officer, United Parcel Service Foundation
JOHN MONAHAN, Senior Fellow and Senior Advisor for Global
Health Initiatives to the President, Georgetown University
GABRIELLA MORRIS, Senior Vice President of Strategic Partnerships,
UNICEF USA
MICHAEL MYERS, Managing Director, The Rockefeller Foundation
(until December 2017)
ANDRIN OSWALD, Director, Life Sciences Partnerships, Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation
REGINA RABINOVICH, ExxonMobil Malaria Scholar in Residence,
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
SCOTT C. RATZAN, President, Anheuser-Busch InBev Foundation
BT SLINGSBY, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Global
Health Innovative Technology Fund
KATHERINE TAYLOR, Associate Director and Director of Global Health
Training, Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame
viii

MARY LOU VALDEZ, Associate Commissioner for International

Programs; Director, Office of International Programs, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration
TADATAKA “TACHI” YAMADA, Venture Partner, Frazier Healthcare
Partners
Health and Medicine Division Staff

RACHEL M. TAYLOR, Senior Program Officer and Forum Director
PRIYANKA NALAMADA, Research Associate
KATHERINE PEREZ, Senior Program Assistant
DANIEL CESNALIS, Financial Associate
JULIE PAVLIN, Director, Board on Global Health
Consultant
JOE ALPER, Science Writer
ix


Reviewers
T
his Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by indi-
viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper-
tise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid
and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine in making each published proceedings as
sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards
for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The
review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the
integrity of the process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this proceedings:
JO IVEY BOUFFORD, New York University College of Global Public

Health
PATRICIA DALY, Save the Children
JESSICA HERZSTEIN, Preventive Medicine Specialist
ALVIN MARCELO, University of the Philippines
VERONIKA WIRTZ, Boston University School of Public Health
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive

comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content
of the proceedings nor did they see the final draft before its release. The
review of this proceedings was overseen by ROBERT S. LAWRENCE,
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He was responsible
xi

xii REVIEWERS
for making certain that an independent examination of this proceedings

was carried out in accordance with standards of the National Academies
and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility
for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteurs and the National
Academies.

Acknowledgments
A
number of individuals contributed to the development of this
workshop and proceedings. These include several staff members
from the Health and Medicine Division and the National Acad-
emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Daniel Cesnalis, Sarah
Kelley, Mariam Malik, Priyanka Nalamada, Julie Pavlin, Katherine Perez,
Bettina Ritter, Rachel Taylor, and Taryn Young. The planning committee
contributed hours of service to develop and execute the agenda. Review-
ers also provided thoughtful remarks in reading the draft manuscript.
The overall successful functioning of the Forum on Public–Private
Partnerships for Global Health and Safety (PPP Forum) and its activities
depends on the generosity of its sponsors. Financial support for the PPP
Forum is provided by Anheuser-Busch InBev; Becton, Dickinson and
Company; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Catholic Health Association
of the United States; ExxonMobil; Fogarty International Center of the
National Institutes of Health; General Electric; Global Health Innovative
Technology Fund; Intel Corporation; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic;
Merck; Novartis Foundation; PATH; PepsiCo; Procter & Gamble Co.; The
Rockefeller Foundation; Safaricom; United Nations Foundation; Univer-
sity of Notre Dame; UPS Foundation; U.S. Agency for International Devel-
opment; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Global
Affairs; U.S. Department of State; U.S. Food and Drug Administration;
and The Vitality Group.
xiii


Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Organization of the Proceedings, 4
2 GLOBAL HEALTH AND GOVERNANCE OF PUBLIC–

PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT 5
The Core Roles of Transparency and Accountability in the
Governance of Global Health Public–Private Partnerships, 5
Addressing Major Challenges in the Governance of Global
Health Public–Private Partnerships, 10
Discussion, 14
3 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PUBLIC–PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE IN GLOBAL HEALTH 17
Discussion, 25
4 EXAMINING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE

DEVELOPMENT AND ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENT
OF PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THEIR
GOVERNANCE 27
Access Accelerated (AA), 27
Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-Free, Mentored, and Safe
(DREAMS), 30
xv

xvi CONTENTS
Global Health Innovative Technology (GHIT) Fund, 31

African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships (ACHAP), 33
The Avahan Experience, 35
Discussion, 37
5 EVALUATING AND REPORTING ON PUBLIC–PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIPS IN GLOBAL HEALTH 51
Discussion, 54
6 IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES IN THE GOVERNANCE OF

PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN GLOBAL HEALTH 57
Closing Remarks, 58
APPENDIXES
A Commissioned Paper: The Core Roles of Transparency and

Accountability in the Governance of Global Health PPPs 59
B World Café Reports on Internal Governance of Individual
Partners and Impacts on Approaches to Public–Private
Partnerships 81
C Speaker and Moderator Biographical Sketches 85
D Workshop Agenda 99
E References 109

Box, Figures, and Tables
BOX
1-1 Statement of Task, 2
FIGURES
2-1 Different types of public–private partnerships, 6
A-1 Graph of usage of “governance” in Google Books, 1940–2008, 61

A-2 Two-dimensional model of governance with transparency and
accountability, 64
TABLES
2-1 PPP Governance Matrix: Assessing Transparency and
Accountability for a Hypothetical PPP, 8
4-1 Partnerships Presented at the Workshop on October 26, 2017, 40
A-1 Two-by-Two Table of Low and High Levels of Transparency and

Accountability, 65
A-2 Governance Matrix for PPPs: Assessing Transparency and
Accountability for a Hypothetical PPP, 74
xvii

xviii BOX, FIGURES, AND TABLES
B-1 Responses to World Café Question 1: What Are the Main Barriers
Your Organization Has Experienced When Engaging in PPPs?, 82
B-2 Responses to World Café Question 2: How Have You or
Your Organization Overcome or Managed These Barriers to
Engagement?, 83

Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACHAP African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships
CBO community-based organization

CEO chief executive officer
DREAMS Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-Free,

Mentored, and Safe
Gates Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Gavi Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
GHIT Global Health Innovative Technology
Global Fund
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria
GPEI Global Polio Eradication Initiative
GSK GlaxoSmithKline
IFPMA International Federation of Pharmaceutical

Manufacturers & Associations
IP intellectual property
MOU memorandum of understanding
NGO nongovernmental organization
xix

xx ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
PEPFAR The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS

Relief
PPP public–private partnership
PPP Forum Forum on Public–Private Partnerships for Global
Health and Safety
UICC Union for International Cancer Control

UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UPS United Parcel Service
WHO World Health Organization

Introduction1
S
olving the world’s health challenges requires multidisciplinary col-
laborations that bring together the talents, experiences, resources, and
ideas from multiple sectors. These collaborations in global health fre-
quently occur through public–private partnerships (PPPs) in which public
and private parties share risks, responsibilities, and decision-making pro-
cesses with the objective of collectively and more effectively addressing a
common goal, said Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., president of the National Academy
of Engineering, in his welcome remarks at the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s workshop on Exploring Partnership
Governance in Global Health. PPPs bring together talents and experiences,
thereby enhancing the strengths, perspectives, and resources of the col-
laboration. This diversity, along with the commitment to work together,
can lead to the development of the creative and multidisciplinary solutions
required to tackle system challenges such as those in global health.
It is assumed that both government (public) and industry (private)
will be partners in a PPP; however, the range of stakeholders engaged
in global health partnerships includes entities such as national govern-
ments, bilateral development cooperation agencies, United Nations agen-
1 Theplanning committee’s role was limited to planning the workshop and the Proceed-
ings of a Workshop was prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a factual summary of
what occurred at the workshop. Statements, recommendations, and opinions expressed are
those of individual presenters and participants, and are not necessarily endorsed or verified
by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and they should not be
construed as reflecting any group consensus.

2 EXPLORING PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE IN GLOBAL HEALTH
BOX 1-1
Statement of Task
An ad-hoc committee will be appointed to plan a public workshop to explore

lessons learned and best practices in governance mechanisms for global health-
focused partnerships. The workshop will focus on governance mechanisms for
global health partnerships varying in size, focus areas, and intended outcomes.
The workshop will feature invited presentations and discussions with the objective
to share lessons learned, discuss best practices, and illuminate knowledge gaps
within the following dimensions of partnership governance:
• Partnership Formation, including what determines the need for a part-

nership to be initiated; how decisions are made during the formation of
the partnership’s focus area, intended outcomes, and size; who makes
decisions during the partnership formation stage; and how decisions are
made about which stakeholders are included at the formation stage
• Partnership Operations, including challenges and best practices in devel
oping memoranda of understanding (MOUs); establishing common
terminology; managing conflicts of interest, particularly when engaging
private-sector companies to leverage their core competencies; establish-
ing decision-making mechanisms that are inclusive and equitable; aligning
partnership governance mechanisms with varying internal processes and
expectations of different partners; and allowing for flexibility to course cor-
rect as needed
• Partnership Accountability, including the role of monitoring and evaluation
for increased transparency and trust; and principles for defining metrics
based on what different partners value
• Engagement of Host Governments and Civil Society, including formal and
informal mechanisms for inclusive and legitimate engagement of impacted
communities throughout decision-making processes
• Application of Lessons Learned from Successful Partnership Models
across global health challenges
The committee will develop the workshop agenda, select and invite speakers
and discussants, and moderate the discussions. Experts will be drawn from the
public and private sectors as well as academic institutions to allow for multilateral,
evidence-based discussions. A summary of the presentations and discussions
at the workshop will be prepared by a designated rapporteur in accordance with
institutional guidelines.
cies, multilateral and regional development banks, hybrid global health

initiatives, philanthropic organizations, local and global civil society orga-
nizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private businesses,
and academic institutions. Given the broad range of determinants that
affect and are affected by health, there are many subcategories within these
stakeholder groups that engage in global health partnerships, for example,

INTRODUCTION 3
within national governments and/or ministries of health, finance, tele-

communications, and transportation. The number of stakeholders beyond
government and industry engaged in and often critical to the success of
these partnerships was mentioned frequently throughout the workshop
and led to discussion on potential new terms to replace “PPP.”
These numerous stakeholders bring varying strengths and resources
to global health partnerships, but they also bring their own organizational
cultures, regulations, and expectations. Managing partnerships among
these stakeholders is complex and requires intentional and thoughtful
governance. Over the last several decades, as the number of interested
stakeholders, resources invested, and initiatives launched within the
global health field has grown, effective governance of global health PPPs
has become increasingly critical.
Broadly, governance is the art of steering partnerships, said Clarion
Johnson from ExxonMobil, and specifically refers to the structures, pro-
cesses, and practices for decision making and ultimately accomplishing
the PPP’s goal. While the importance of governance in global health part-
nerships has been identified, there is, in general, a lack of agreement on
best practices (Stenson, 2010). This lack of agreement is partly a result of
the significant variation across global health partnerships in size, includ-
ing the number of partners engaged, resources allocated, and geographic
focus; issue area; level of formality; and intended outcomes. An exami-
nation of PPPs in global health revealed some common shortcomings in
their governance, including weakness in or absence of strategic direc-
tion, accountability mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation systems, and
risk management; lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities; confusion
between the roles of management versus governance; and inadequate
attention to resource mobilization and to the human resources required
to deliver programs and achieve objectives (Bezanson and Isenman, 2012).
To explore the role of governance in PPPs for global health and poten-
tial best practices for design and operations, the Forum on Public–Private
Partnerships for Global Health and Safety (PPP Forum)2 created an ad hoc
committee to plan a workshop with the following objectives (see Box 1-1):
• Examine the role of governance and its dimensions in PPPs for

global health.
2 The PPP Forum was launched in late 2013 with the objective to foster a collaborative
community of multisectoral health and safety leaders to leverage the strengths of multiple
sectors and disciplines to yield benefits for global health and safety. PPP Forum workshops
are an opportunity to share lessons learned and promising approaches and to discuss how
to improve future efforts in areas of global health and safety promotion that have been
prioritized by forum members.

• Consider the range of stakeholders and sectors engaged in global

health partnerships and how specific organizational attributes
impact a partnership’s governance and decision-making processes.
• Explore best practices, common challenges, and lessons learned
in the varying approaches to partnership governance.
• Illuminate key issues in the governance of PPPs for global health
with the goal of increasing their effectiveness in improving
health outcomes.
The workshop focused on governance of partnerships that are defined

by the following parameters: (1) a clearly defined, shared goal that centers
on meeting the health needs of disadvantaged populations; (2) the inclu-
sion of at least three partners with a government entity and business rep-
resented among them; (3) development of a formal joint agreement among
the partners with a defined set of rules; (4) contributions of resources from
all partners (resources can include financing, technical expertise, innova-
tion, personnel, relationships, and research); and (5) expected value for all
partners.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

An independent planning committee organized this workshop in
accordance with the procedures of the National Academies (see Appen-
dix D for the workshop agenda). The planning committee members
were Clarion Johnson, Regina Rabinovich, Jo Ivey Boufford, Kevin Etter,
Lauren Marks, John Monahan, Cate O’Kane, and BT Slingsby. The work-
shop was held in Washington, DC, on October 26, 2017, and included
invited presentations, panel discussions, and small group discussions.
This publication summarizes the workshop’s presentations and discus-
sions, and it highlights common challenges, lessons, practical strategies,
and suggested ideas for improving PPP governance in global health.
The content of the proceedings is limited to what was presented and
discussed at the workshop and does not constitute a full or exhaustive
overview of the field.
In accordance with the policies of the National Academies, the work-
shop did not attempt to establish any conclusions or recommendations
about needs and future directions, focusing instead on issues identified
by the speakers and workshop participants. In addition, the organizing
committee’s role was limited to planning the workshop. The workshop
proceedings was prepared by workshop rapporteurs Rachel M. Taylor
and Joe Alper as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop.

Global Health and Governance

of Public–Private Partnerships
in the Current Context
T
he workshop opened with a presentation by Michael R. Reich from
the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on the core roles of
transparency and accountability in the governance of global health
PPPs and was followed by a panel discussion on the challenges in PPP
governance in global health. The four panelists—Steve Davis from PATH,
Mark Dybul from the Georgetown University Center for Global Health
and Quality, Muhammad Pate from Big Win Philanthropy, and Tachi
Yamada from Frazier Healthcare Partners—discussed transparency and
accountability as well as additional dimensions of PPP governance, board
structure, terminology, power dynamics and equity, and the management
of real and perceived conflicts of interest.
THE CORE ROLES OF TRANSPARENCY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE GOVERNANCE OF GLOBAL
HEALTH PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
This section summarizes Michael R. Reich’s presentation based on
the commissioned paper “The Core Roles of Transparency and Account-
ability in the Governance of Global Health PPPs” (see Appendix A) and
the discussion that followed.
To begin, Reich provided the definition of a PPP for global health that
has been used by the PPP Forum: PPPs are formal collaborative arrange-
ments through which public and private parties share risks, responsibili-
ties, and decision-making processes with the goal of collectively address-

PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS for HEALTH
I DOMESTIC I I GLOBAL I
INFORMAL FORMAL
(handshake) (written document)
USE EXISTING ENTITIES CREATE NEW ENTITY

(contractual joint venture) (special purpose entity)
I FOR-PROFIT I NOT FOR-PROFIT
FIGURE 2-1 Different types of public–private partnerships.

SOURCE: As presented by Michael R. Reich on October 26, 2017.
ing a shared objective within the global health field. A key point here, he
said, is that PPPs involve a wide range of actors, stakeholders, and types
of partnerships, and that different types of partnerships may require dif-
ferent governance structures, processes, and practices. Partnerships, said
Reich, can be domestic or global, be informal and sealed with a handshake
or formal and finalized with a signed document, use existing structures
in a contractual joint venture or create a new special purpose entity, and
be for profit or nonprofit (see Figure 2-1). He also noted that a single PPP
can evolve from one type to another and engage different actors and
stakeholders over its lifetime.
Governance is a relatively new term, said Reich, and as such it does
not yet have a stable definition. To frame the workshop’s discussion, the
PPP Forum borrowed the definition of governance as “the art of steering
societies and organizations” from the Canadian Institute on Governance,
which admits that the complexity of governance is difficult to capture in
a simple definition.1 This is particularly true, Reich acknowledged, when
dealing with global health PPPs given the multiple partners, languages,
cultures, and expectations involved in these partnerships. He suggested
1 See https://iog.ca/what-is-governance (accessed January 19, 2018).

GLOBAL HEALTH AND GOVERNANCE OF PPPs IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT 7
that governance of global health PPPs is less about steering a process and
more akin to herding cats.
In preparation for the workshop, the National Academies Research
Center provided Reich with a review of the literature on PPP gover-
nance. His initial impression after reading through 519 titles and abstracts
and identifying 42 that were directly relevant was that the large vol-
ume of publications contained many recommendations, but there was
little application of proposed models to real-life partnerships. He did,
however, find within the literature two commonly discussed terms—
transparency and accountability—and decided to focus on those concepts
as separate and orthogonal dimensions of designing and evaluating PPPs.
Transparency and accountability are not simple concepts, acknowl-
edged Reich. For example, a partnership might have low transparency
to the public but high accountability to a specific group or entity, he
explained. His proposed two-dimensional model does not specify how
much transparency or accountability is good or desirable. Furthermore,
these two dimensions represent only two of several possible aspects of
governance. Some might claim, for instance, that participation should be
considered as a third variable of governance, although Reich said that
he preferred to view participation as a means to achieving transparency
and accountability. Reich therefore decided to propose a simple two-
dimensional model in order to help improve conceptual clarity about PPP
governance and to provide a model that could lead to concrete options for
planning, assessing, and changing PPP governance.
Within the dimension of transparency, Reich presented three relevant
questions: who gets the information; what is the information (i.e., inputs,
processes, outputs, and outcomes); and how does information dissemi-
nation occur. Transparency is important because it allows for learning,
contributes to democracy, shapes organizational performance, and con-
tributes to a positive public perception of the PPP. It also contributes to
accountability: it is difficult to be held accountable if information on PPP
performance is not available.
For accountability, Reich noted that the literature identifies two core
elements: answerability and sanctions. His favored definition of account-
ability, from Edward Rubin (2005), is that accountability is “the ability of
one actor to demand an explanation or justification of another actor for
its actions and to reward or punish that second actor on the basis of its
performance or its explanation.” As with transparency, Reich presented
three relevant questions: to whom is the partnership accountable; what is
the partnership accountable for in terms of metrics, processes, outputs, and
outcomes; and in what way is the partnership held accountable? Account-
ability is important because it assures that a PPP is achieving its public
interest objective; changes and improves organizational performance; con-

tributes to democracy; and contributes to a positive public perception of

the PPP.
Using these two dimensions of transparency and accountability, Reich
created a PPP governance matrix (see Table 2-1) that can serve both ana-
lytical and planning purposes. As an analytical tool, the matrix can help
assess the characteristics and levels of transparency and accountability
for an organization. As a planning tool, the matrix can help design trans-
parency and accountability relationships and mechanisms for new PPPs.
The relationships described in this matrix led Reich to ask the ethi-
cal question of how much transparency and accountability should be
TABLE 2-1 PPP Governance Matrix: Assessing Transparency and

Accountability for a Hypothetical PPP
Relationship: Level
Party B Contents Mechanisms (High/Low)
Information Information How
to? on? informed?
Transparency: General public Limited number Annual report Low
Party A (PPP) of outputs available on
PPP webpage
Beneficiaries Information on Written report Low
a few outputs and public
meeting
Board of Detailed reports Board meetings, High
directors on key inputs, financial and
processes, operating
outputs reports
Accountable Accountable How
to? for? accountable?
Accountability: General public Limited number PPP webpage, Low
Party A (PPP) of metrics public hearings
Beneficiaries A few metrics Ombudsman Low
on outputs and complaints,
using public
pressure and
reputation
Core partners Detailed metrics Annual reviews High
on inputs, of key staff,
processes, with firing or
outputs bonus, and of
key partners
NOTES: Contents include inputs, processes, and outputs. PPP = public–private partnership.
SOURCE: As presented by Michael R. Reich on October 26, 2017.

required. One reviewer of the matrix suggested that minimum standards

could be set, while another raised the idea of creating bronze, silver, and
gold levels to rank PPP governance. The more complicated questions, said
Reich, are who decides on those standards and how. There are national
laws, for example, that govern requirements for nonprofit organizations’
tax reporting and corporations’ regulatory filings. An international stan-
dards organization could set standards, or a self-regulatory PPP associa-
tion could establish good partnership best practices. He observed that,
in the current environment, PPPs are left to set up their own standards.
Reich noted that, within a partnership, different stakeholders or part-
ners may demand different levels of transparency and accountability,
which raises the question of how to align those different interests and
how to deal with the “multiple accountability disorder” that such dis-
agreements can create (Ebrahim et al., 2014) while seeking to achieve the
goals of the PPP. One of the tangible questions for PPP governance is what
happens when partners disagree. Reich’s impression is that partnerships
work best when there are relationships of trust between the core partners.
“It is those relationships of trust that are underappreciated in the field of
public health and their role both in policy making and in making organi-
zations work well,” said Reich.
In closing, Reich said he hoped that his paper helps clarify what
governance means for partnerships and that the matrix of transparency
and accountability as two core dimensions would prove useful in helping
partnerships organize their governance structures and strategies.
Responding to a question from Jo Ivey Boufford from New York Uni-
versity about why he chose not to include inclusiveness and engagement
as part of his matrix, given issues with power relationships in PPPs, Reich
noted the decision-making problem with whom and how many to include
in the governance structure. He suggested that too many representa-
tives on a board can make it difficult for the board to serve its strategic
functions, and in a sense, the board becomes more of a representation
assembly rather than the supervisor of transparency and accountability.
In addition, he added, total transparency to all stakeholders is a difficult
goal to achieve given that the board will need to make certain decisions
based on sensitive information to which not everyone should have access.
“This gets down to questions of what kind of information should be avail-
able and to which groups,” said Reich. “If you want serious discussions
of sensitive information, it is difficult to do it with representatives from
all the groups sitting at the table.”

ADDRESSING MAJOR CHALLENGES IN THE GOVERNANCE

OF GLOBAL HEALTH PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
In her introduction of the four panelists, session moderator Regina
Rabinovich shared that in conversations with them before the workshop,
she discovered that each was “looking at different parts of the elephant
based on their various experiences.” Given the diversity of their experi-
ences, she asked the four panelists to talk about the major challenges they
encountered in governing global health PPPs based on the partnerships
in which they have engaged and examples of how they worked to man-
age them.
Steve Davis remarked that many global health partnerships today are
developing as one-off activities that bring together public-, private-, and
social-sector partners for a specific project. These partnerships are not
intended to have sustained continuous life cycles that characterize some
of the largest partnerships for global health; however, they still require
effective governance structures. Based on his observations and experience
engaging in these partnerships from the social-sector side,2 Davis made an
appeal for the global health field to stop using the term public–private part-
nership. “First of all, it is old and outdated,” he said, “and second, most
of these [collaborations] need to be thought of as multisector, and PPP
leaves out the whole idea of where the social sector fits in.” In addition,
he said, it has been shown that most industry–government partnerships
do not function to their greatest potential unless they include a social-
sector partner. For Davis, the term multisector partnerships reframes the
conversation and brings different sectors to the table from the beginning.
Going forward, Davis predicted there will be an increase in the types
of mechanisms used to create partnerships; however, literature demon-
strating the effectiveness of emerging forms of partnership is lacking. “We
have some real work to do in the next few years to make sure that as these
grow, their effectiveness grows,” said Davis.
On transparency and accountability, Davis agreed with Reich’s posi-
tion that both are key dimensions in the success of multisector partner-
ships. He emphasized that more details are needed about who should be
accountable for what and transparent about what. In addition to transpar-
ency and accountability, Davis proposed three more dimensions that are
important for governance. First is altitude, as in at what altitude is the
steering committee or advisory board being asked to operate compared
to the partnership’s management. The second is alignment around the
objective. Successful partnerships, said Davis, have a clear objective and
2 Davis defined the social sector to include philanthropic, nongovernmental, and academic
actors.

are usually well resourced to achieve that objective. The third added
dimension is adaptability.
Mark Dybul began his remarks by agreeing with Davis that the
term PPP is outdated in the current global context. From a philosophi-
cal perspective, he said, it is important to examine the 2002 M onterrey
Consensus,3 which set the path for the two largest partnerships in global
health—the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global
Fund), and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi). The Monterrey Consensus
focused on several principles: country ownership, results-based financ-
ing, accountability and transparency, and multisector involvement. Dybul
noted that the negotiations to produce the Monterrey Consensus almost
broke down over the inclusion of the private sector.
Turning to the governance of the Global Fund and Gavi, Dybul
explained that the structures established to govern them are not boards
but rather parliamentary or congressional structures. These governing
bodies exist for a number of reasons, and a primary one is to raise money.
One of the reasons that these two partnerships have succeeded is the
strong support they have received from civil society as well as from the
public and private sectors, and that support has come, at least in part,
because the parliamentary structure allows all sectors to be involved.
Yet, one downside of this structure has been around accountability and
transparency, Dybul shared. Another has been the challenges associated
with deciding on membership and voting privileges.
The Global Fund’s parliamentary body includes 10 voting seats for
implementers; 10 for external funders, including industry; and 20 alter-
nates plus nonvoting members. The number of seats for external funders
is based on the amount of money an entity provides, with industry hold-
ing one of the seats. When the governance structure was established, the
expected role of the governing body’s members was unclear. “Constitu-
encies for a long time have come strictly to represent their constituency
and vote according to their constituency and their constituencies’ desires,
rather than saying this is what our constituency thinks, but when you
vote you have to vote in the context of what is best for the organization
or structure,” said Dybul. Dybul advises newly forming PPPs to be careful
and clear about membership requirements and expectations.
The Global Fund’s voting structure has proven to be problematic
because it created two voting blocs—the funder bloc and implementer
bloc—as if they were in competition, said Dybul. He continued, “this
immediately tells people you are not trying to get to a common goal.” An
additional challenge is the provision in the governance agreement that
3 See https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf (accessed Janu-
ary 24, 2018).

any four members of the funder or implementer blocs can vote no to bar
a decision. The problem, he said, is that once this voting provision was
established, it cannot be changed because the blocking minority votes
against it. Dybul explained that one consequence is that the Global Fund
is stuck with an antiquated voting structure that prevents the inclusion of
new partners. “The world has changed in 15 years,” said Dybul. “There
are big countries creating big development structures, and we cannot
bring them onto the board. If you cannot be on the board and you can-
not vote, why would you give money or engage with an institution?”
Moving from the institutional governance of the Global Fund, Dybul
emphasized that in many respects, the in-country mechanisms of a part-
nership are more important than its global structure. The country coordi-
nating mechanisms that were developed as part of the Global Fund have
not worked well in many countries because of government dominance
and difficulty engaging civil society at the country level, he suggested.
“We are still not good at the country ownership principle,” said Dybul
in his concluding remarks. “We need to focus on what is happening in
the countries as much as on what is happening in the central structures.”
Muhammad Pate joined with Dybul and Davis in suggesting that
the term PPP be retired given the preponderance of multisector partner-
ships today. Also problematic, he said, is the perception of governance in
global health as hierarchical sets of institutions. “What we have in reality
is networks of institutions and individuals with formal relationships and
informal relationships,” said Pate. Governing in the context of networks
operating in global health requires different structures than those that
govern top-down partnerships.
Complicating this operating environment are the differences in world-
views of some members of the external funding community, Pate noted.
China, for example, may have a different worldview than the United States
or Europe about country ownership. In the same way, he explained, agen-
das and values can differ, making it challenging to align interests of the
global PPPs and the countries where they are operating. “That divergence
between supranational partnerships and the way they are governed, and
the national governance arrangement . . . is a very fundamental issue that
may explain some of the disconnect that you see,” said Pate.
He emphasized that asymmetries exist in the way some governance
arrangements are configured, particularly regarding legitimacy. State and
federal governments are the legitimate authorities in their own respective
spaces; however, there may be other entities linked to global partnerships
that do not have the same legitimacy and may not be accountable at the
local level. In addition, there are asymmetries in information, finance,
and influence that should be acknowledged when structuring governance
arrangements for partnerships in global health, said Pate.

Reflecting on Reich’s matrix, Pate observed that the ethical dimension

is missing. Public health has ethical principles derived from medicine,
but Pate worries that the diverse group of actors in global health may
not share those ethical principles. One effective multisector partnership
that he feels does share these principles is the Global Polio Eradication
Initiative (GPEI). The GPEI partners have been able to come together and
steer the world toward nearly eradicating polio. Pate noted that within
GPEI, each partner’s role and the role of the monitoring board were well
defined.
On the other hand, the global response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak
in West Africa was “a miss,” said Pate. Across the many partners in this
effort, none were held accountable for the failed response to the outbreak
and the resulting loss of lives. “There were many local nongovernmental
entities and national and regional governmental entities that played a
role, but where is the accountability?” asked Pate. “We need more work
in terms of accountability to the local entities.”
The final panelist Tachi Yamada focused his remarks on experiences
and observations regarding board structures for PPPs. When he joined the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he encountered partnerships and other
entities with boards composed primarily of largely self-interested indi-
viduals with no sense of accountability for the overall welfare of the orga-
nization. In addition, many boards were too big to make substantial and
wise decisions on behalf of the entities they represented. He also observed
the tendency of boards to usurp the role of management in deciding what
programs to support or decline. One of his biggest surprises was that the
Gates Foundation did not have a board seat within many of these partner-
ships despite often being the largest funder.
Yamada said the term PPP describes a clash of two cultures with dif-
ferent expectations. Understanding these differences can help create better
governance structures. Boards in the private sector have three straight-
forward responsibilities: fiduciary, strategy, and selecting the chief execu-
tive officer (CEO). Boards do not interfere with management; instead,
management is delegated to the authority that runs the organization and
makes day-to-day decisions. In the public sector, there is an additional
responsibility to ensure that a program is meeting public needs, and
Yamada emphasized that this responsibility is different from the role of
a private-sector governing board. The board of a private-sector company
recognizes that the company cannot survive if it fails to meet the needs of
its customers; however, he explained, shareholders, not customers, drive
the board’s decisions. A PPP board, on the other hand, is accountable to
its customers, who are defined as the public. “Ultimately, we have to think
of governance as not being controllers but people who are invested in
the best interests of the entity that they are working with,” said Yamada.

He concluded his remarks with an example of a governance struc-

ture that he helped create 6 years earlier for the Global Health Innova-
tive Technology (GHIT) Fund (the GHIT Fund is described in greater
detail in Chapter 4). The tiered governance structure of the GHIT Fund
has different components, each with specific roles and responsibilities.
A council, whose only job is to select the board chair, is made up of
funders. The board consists of independent experts, none of whom are
funders or funder representatives. There is an advisory board of individu-
als appointed because of their expertise on relevant subjects and who
have some representational connections, and a selection committee of
domain experts who select the grant applications to approve and fund.
“It is possible to create a structure in which different pieces have differ-
ent functions, and maybe that is how best to bridge this gap in culture
between the public and private sector,” said Yamada.
DISCUSSION
Rabinovich asked the panelists to address a governance issue that the
PPP Forum members often encounter: managing conflict of interest when
it involves industry partners. Yamada responded that in general, conflicts
are acceptable as long as they are declared. Dybul added that most other
individuals on boards have far more significant conflicts than the industry
representatives. Grantees, whether from civil society, implementing gov-
ernments, or funders, are all conflicted. He agreed with Yamada that dis-
closure and transparency are critical. Davis agreed with Dybul, and noted
that in the private sector, board members often have conflicts and they
sit on the board because they bring expertise that benefits the company.
The solution, he suggested, is to disclose and recuse on conflicted matters.
Kevin Etter from the United Parcel Service (UPS) Foundation com-
mented that in addition to retiring the phrase PPP, there is a need to
change perceptions about private-sector engagement. He has found that
there is an expectation for the private sector to change the way it engages
with the public sector and civil society but an unwillingness for the public
sector and civil society to change the way they interact with the private
companies. “Change the conversation entirely and quit talking about
private-sector engagement and start talking about public-sector engage-
ment and civil society engagement and what it is that has to change in all
sectors,” said Etter.
Sonal Mehta from Avahan and the India HIV/AIDS Alliance com-
mented that while NGOs are expected to be transparent and account-
able in a partnership, there is often little discussion about government
accountability. Yamada replied that government accountability is very
important, and one issue he has encountered is government being a pas-

sive partner rather than an active participant that contributes resources

and commits to the success of a PPP.
“The lack of government engagement is often a two-sided problem,”
said Yamada. “The first is that the PPP does not think about how the gov-
ernment could engage and take over a project. Second, they do not think
enough about how to provide the funding to initiate that effort. On the
government’s side, these programs are fine as long as they are funded, but
there is no sense that the programs are important enough to put its own
money behind it.” In his opinion, PPPs need to have a strategy to engage
governments in their projects. Dinesh Arora from the National Institution
for Transforming India commented that government agencies may not be
equipped legally or financially to engage with the private sector.
Yamada noted the importance of legitimacy as a partner. He joined
the Gates Foundation about 4 years after it started, and he discovered
that, “like the nouveau riche investment banker that moved into the
neighborhood and built this huge home, everybody hated us because we
had no legitimacy.” His approach was to form partnerships with seven
leading global organizations, including the World Health Organization
(WHO), UNICEF, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the
Global Fund, which had their own legitimacy, and the Gates Foundation
could provide legitimacy through funding. In the end, WHO became
the Gates Foundation’s largest grantee and the funds it provided gave
WHO the flexibility it needed to implement a number of its programs.
This arrangement situated the foundation as a partner rather than just
a funder. In Pate’s opinion, the best multisectoral partnerships are those
that have a diversity of values that individuals bring to the table, and
that acknowledging the various sources of legitimacy, whether through
providing financing, technical expertise, or political legitimacy, will level
the playing field. He noted, too, the importance of developing a common
language among partners from various sectors.
Davis said there is a need to work on multidimensional engagement
models that help get rid of the presumptions about how each sector
behaves, such as assumptions that the NGO sector can be inefficient,
the public sector can be lazy, and the private sector can be greedy. He
suggested building a cohort of individuals with experience in all three
sectors who could bridge the various sectors and help reduce, although
not eliminate, asymmetry and help structure governance to deal with
inherent power imbalances. Davis also emphasized the need to stop treat-
ing the partners who provide funding to a partnership as customers who
need to be pleased. The real customers, he said, are national governments,
health ministers, health systems, and the people on the ground who are
trying to improve quality of life. This change in attitude, he said, would

also help reduce asymmetries, as would building trust among partners

and recognizing and understanding the important role each partner plays.
Sir George Alleyne from the Pan American Health Organization won-
dered if accountability could be viewed through a principal–agent rela-
tionship in which there is a relationship between the person who has the
account and the person who renders the account, and in which transpar-
ency is not just another method of ensuring that information asymmetry
is reduced to a minimum.
Reich concluded the discussion period with several comments.
Addressing the issue of changing the terms used to describe public–
private partnerships in global health, Reich said that PPP has become a
brand name covering a wide range of organizations. He recommended
against renaming these organizations as “multisectoral partnerships.” A
more useful term might be “hybrid partnerships,” because there is litera-
ture on hybrid organizations that addresses social enterprise.
Reich appreciated Dybul’s point on the difficulty of changing a sys-
tem of rules once it is in place, noting that institutional arrangements are
“sticky.” According to the concept of path dependency, positive feedback
loops frequently develop, which makes changing an institution or a policy
once it is established difficult. “The lesson here is be careful what you set
up at the beginning, when you have limited information on the effects
of particular decisions, because it can have longstanding unanticipated
consequences,” said Reich. He also agreed with Pate’s point about net-
works of institutions; Reich noted that many partnerships are a collection
of organizational entities, each with their own set of rules and cultures
that can clash.

Legal Considerations for

Public–Private Partnership
Governance in Global Health
T
hrough a problem-solving exercise,1 panelists in the workshop’s
second session explored legal considerations within different sec-
tors when developing global health PPPs. The problem-solving
exercise, posed by session moderator Lauren Marks from the U.S. Depart-
ment of State, was framed through a hypothetical scenario in which a
pharmaceutical company has developed a relatively new drug used to
vaccinate children and intends to donate one million doses for children
in sub-Saharan Africa in partnership with a consortium of organizations.
The partners have a shared vested interest in children’s health and a goal
of vaccinating one million children. The partners include a philanthropic
organization that makes strategic investments in children’s health, a mul-
tilateral alliance representing country governments and their ministries of
health that is the lead coordinating body for global vaccination programs,
an NGO that implements programs on the ground, and a U.S. government
agency that has an office dedicated to setting policy and providing foreign
assistance for children’s health. This office, explained Marks, happens
to provide funding to the NGO to implement programs and the under
secretary who heads the office has a seat on the board of the multilateral
alliance. After describing the scenario, Marks posed a set of related ques-
tions to the panelists—Douglas Brooks from Gilead Sciences; Anthony
Brown from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Kenneth Miller from the Bill &
1 See
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Global/
PublicPrivatePartnerships/8%20Oct%202017/Fact-Pattern.pdf (accessed May 16, 2018).
17

Melinda Gates Foundation; Nina Nathani from Matalon & Nathani, LLP;
and Valerie Wenderoth from the U.S. Department of State.
To begin, Marks asked the panelists how joining a PPP would differ
from being part of a joint venture, corporate deal structure, or similar
arrangement that brings parties together. Brooks responded first by not-
ing the firewall at a pharmaceutical company between its commercial
activities and its public affairs, grant-making activities, and community
engagement efforts, where this PPP would fall. Miller added that for a
foundation, all partnerships it enters would have a charitable purpose
and mission to improve the lives of the target beneficiaries, regardless of
how the arrangement is structured.
In the next phase of the scenario, Marks stated that the parties
decide to put together a memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlin-
ing their respective roles and responsibilities in the partnership. Similar
to any corporate deal, the parties start doing due diligence on each other.
The routine due diligence search reveals several potential sources of
conflicts of interest: the pharmaceutical company was recently involved
in litigation related to its business operations; the undersecretary of
the child health office at the U.S. Department of State owns stock in
the pharmaceutical company; and the president and benefactor of the
philanthropic organization is on the board of the NGO. Marks asked
the panelists to describe how they would evaluate these potential con-
flicts and weigh their relevance versus the value these entities may add
to the partnership.
At the Gates Foundation, Miller would try to weigh the risks against
the rewards of involving a conflicted party. “I think conflict of interest can
be challenging for all of us, but at the Gates Foundation, conflict is not a
binary event where there is a conflict and you cannot be involved,” said
Miller. In this scenario, the president of the philanthropy’s seat on the
NGO board could provide beneficial insight into how the NGO partner
is using the funds. On the other hand, the president would have fiduciary
responsibilities to both the foundation and NGO. If the partnership is not
achieving the desired impact or is off mission, it could be difficult for the
president to represent the interests of both the NGO and the philanthropy.
Other complications include potential confidentiality issues and repu-
tational risk for the foundation if favoritism for the NGO is perceived.
Depending on the specific goals of a PPP, one solution Miller might sug-
gest would be for the foundation president to have a role as a nonvoting
observer on the NGO board.
When the issue of conflict of interest comes up, Brown noted that
attention usually turns to the industry partner. However, he stressed
that conflicts must be evaluated for all partners. “When we think about
conflicts, we have conversations around how we manage conflicts in an

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PPP GOVERNANCE 19
environment where a number of stakeholders are receiving funds or have

other aspects of their role that is a conflict,” said Brown. The challenge, he
said, is to develop a balanced approach where pros and cons are weighed
before making a final decision.
Marks added that from a programmatic perspective, evaluating con-
flicts based on risks and rewards gets tricky. “You want people who are
knowledgeable experts and who are committed [to be] involved in the
project,” said Marks. It is important to ensure is that the conflicted party’s
interests are aligned with the partnership’s interests. In some cases, added
Brooks, being intentional about disclosing potential conflicts and being
thoughtful about dealing with them is enough.
Nathani agreed with Brooks’s statement about disclosure. Disclosure
opens the door to weighing the value of moving forward given whatever
conflicts exist. The first step she advises for clients when they start talk-
ing to potential partners is to execute nondisclosure agreements. From a
U.S. government perspective, Wenderoth’s first step in due diligence is
assessing internal conflict of interest, as in, determining if any individuals
within the department have a relationship with a potential partner. “We
cannot have an actual or even perceived conflict of interest in terms of
any financial gain that a person within the department might receive from
that partner,” said Wenderoth. The U.S. Department of State requires an
internal agreement with department lawyers before even engaging in
formal discussions with potential partners. In the hypothetical scenario,
she would challenge the undersecretary’s participation in the partnership
given that he owns stock in the pharmaceutical company.
Marks stated that one of the functions of an MOU is to identify the
contributions each partner will make. Identifying contributions raises
the question of how to value them and leads to discussion on whether
the value of a contribution equates to voting power. In the hypothetical
scenario, the pharmaceutical company wants to value the research and
development that it put into the drug development. Wenderoth empha-
sized that the word contribution is avoided at the U.S. Department of State
because it requires statutory authority to make contributions. In the case
where a partner wanted to value what each entity brings to the table, she
would advise the U.S. Department of State to stay out of the conversa-
tion. She also noted that a valuation process does not happen with every
partnership.
Miller shared that the Gates Foundation would examine the overall
cost of a project and the percentage of which the foundation would be
funding, and then weigh it against the impact its funds will have and
how it relates to the foundation’s charitable mission. Relative valuation
might influence the structure of a deal, but from the foundation’s perspec-
tive, it is not a critical component. Brown said that Gavi takes the same

basic approach that Miller described when joining a PPP and does not
necessarily value what each partner or stakeholder brings to the table.
He did note that Gavi sometimes enters into what he calls opportunistic
partnerships that are partnerships with a commercial organization or an
NGO to achieve a specific outcome. “In those instances, we have to value
what has been provided to us,” said Brown. Gavi uses generally accepted
accounting principles and market determination. To value vaccines, for
example, Gavi uses publicly available data posted on the UNICEF web-
site. Gilead values its contributions using a set formula for calculating fair
market value, said Brooks, and it follows a policy that its contributions
will never be more than a small percentage of any organization’s budget.
Cate O’Kane, an independent consultant, commented from the audience
on the challenge of navigating as a partner versus as a procurer when the
organization is compensated for services or products. She noted, too, that
many partnerships are based on intangibles, such as expertise in a country
or government connections, rather than money. Valuing those intangibles
can be an issue for an NGO that is trying to maintain its 501(c)(3) status,
for example.
The hypothetical scenario dealt with intellectual property (IP). As
part of its contribution to the partnership, the philanthropic foundation
will fund the pharmaceutical company to adapt its drug compounds to
make them more fit for purpose in developing countries. “Who owns the
intellectual property, which in this case would be the drug compound
that has been adapted with funding from the philanthropic organi-
zation?” asked Marks. Brooks replied that his company would own
what it brought to the table, but any decision on who would own any
new formulations of products that resulted from this funding would
be negotiated. Miller responded that in negotiating IP ownership, the
Gates Foundation would need assurances that the IP is used to meet its
charitable objectives. Typically, that would mean allowing the pharma-
ceutical company to own the IP and, in return, the foundation would
expect the company to agree that it would provide access to the drug at
an affordable price in developing countries. “If we are thinking about
sustainability and engagement and how we incentivize the for-profit
world to work with us on these charitable projects, allowing them to
retain ownership of their intellectual property provides that type of
incentive and a pathway for engagement,” said Miller. He added that IP
ownership is one of the biggest “hot-button issues,” along with liability,
when negotiating partnerships.
In the hypothetical scenario, the U.S. government will provide fund-
ing through an existing, openly competed grant to the NGO to handle
supply chain distribution and programmatic implementation on the
ground. Marks asked the panelists, in this scenario, what the NGO’s role

would be in the partnership, whether it should be a party to the MOU,

and if it can have a seat on a steering committee of any governance body.
Nathani responded that most NGOs would want a seat on the steering
committee and perhaps even a coequal role in the partnership. The NGO,
she said, is participating in the partnership because it is consistent with its
own charitable mission rather than acting as a general service provider.
In many instances, the NGO will have worked in the geographic area
and therefore brings needed expertise to the partnership. “Most NGOs
would feel they have just as much to bring to the partnership as the other
members,” said Nathani. “They would want to be a party to the MOU.”
Wenderoth emphasizes to her colleagues at the U.S. Department of State
that a grantee can be a partner, but the organization will still be held
accountable to its grant agreement. Including an NGO as a partner with
a seat on the steering committee would require a justification beyond
being a grantee.
In the hypothetical scenario, the NGO would conduct monitoring and
evaluation, including data collection and analysis. This raises the ques-
tion of who owns the data and who has the right to publish the results
of the evaluation. Nathani explained that a recipient of a U.S. govern-
ment grant has the right under current regulations to own all intellec-
tual property developed or created during the performance of the grant.
However, “there is always the responsibility to share intellectual property
developed under a federally-funded grant with the federal government,”
said Nathani, and there may be additional requirements to deposit data
and the intellectual works that support that data with the Development
Data Library and the Development Experience Clearinghouse of the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), for example. Beyond
complying with government requirements, she suggested that most
NGOs would take the position that sharing data with all members of the
partnership would be appropriate. She noted that some countries assert
the right to own the data from any projects conducted in their country. In
this case, the NGO will often need to request permission from the govern-
ment to share data with other members of the partnership and allow other
members to analyze the data and publish the results. “That definitely can
be a tricky issue and has to be explored very carefully, and everybody’s
potentially prior obligations have to be understood by all members of
the partnership so it can be addressed upfront,” said Nathani. “This is
not something you want to be addressing 6 months into the partnership
when the data has already been collected.”
The Gates Foundation, said Miller, has an open-access policy that
requires that any publication resulting from a project it funds be pub-
lished in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and that the underlying
data are made available. The foundation has encountered issues when

the data are owned by the Ministry of Health, and the ministry may be
concerned that the data will reflect poorly on its programs. Other issues
arise when partners have access policies that conflict with the founda-
tion’s policy. In these cases, negotiations are needed to determine how to
comply with those different policies.
In addition to the planned donation, the hypothetical scenario
includes both the U.S. government and the multilateral alliance procur-
ing additional drugs from the pharmaceutical company to treat more chil-
dren. Marks asked the panelists to describe their views on the difference
between procurement and partnership. “When are we partnering with the
private sector, and when are we contracting for its services?” she asked.
Brown said Gavi often has several relationships with the same entity, and
the question he asks is whether the company is simply providing goods
and services or if it is making a high-level commitment to Gavi’s mission.
If it is the latter, they are a partner, and if it is the former or if there is some
sort of tender or competitive process, they are in a procurement relation-
ship with Gavi. This is a complicated process, he emphasized, because
being a partner in a PPP can give a company a competitive advantage in
a country over a company that makes a similar product but is not part
of the PPP.
Brown explained that partners agree to an MOU with aspirational
goals on how the partner will use its expertise to help the PPP achieve
its goals, while a procurement arrangement uses a formal contract with
delivery terms and prices of goods and services. There are also hybrid
arrangements that involve donated services that need to be valued. He
added that risks are allocated differently in each of these relationships
and noted that there are different individuals in Gavi who manage these
different types of relationships. Marks added that it is important when
entering into these different types of relationships to understand the
potential partners’ motivations. “Partnership does not mean all the moti-
vations have to be the same, but I think it means you have to agree on the
end goals,” said Marks. Miller added that it may be necessary to think
more holistically about governance when organizations have multiple
relationships with the same entities. Marks agreed and noted that the
U.S. Department of State has had conversations with other government
agencies about creating a standard MOU template.
Through the hypothetical scenario, the panelists were asked how the
PPP should approach liability. Nathani replied that liability can extend
to the NGO that participates in the supply chain, and the NGO should
request that a quality assurance agreement or a pharmacovigilance agree-
ment be executed with the company donating or supplying the vaccines.
“That would be an important aspect of the legal part of the MOU and
governance to ensure that those responsibilities were addressed appro-

priately,” said Nathani. In addition to a quality assurance agreement, the

MOU should also require that the drug manufacturer take responsibility
for giving the NGO instructions on storage and use of the drug. She also
noted there could be additional issues regarding which organization is
responsible for registering the drug with national regulatory authorities
in the countries in which it is to be distributed.
Miller said the Gates Foundation tries to structure agreements in a
way that limits or eliminates its potential liability on the ground, typically
by only providing funding and not being involved in operationalizing or
implementing programs. In general, though, liability is a difficult issue
for partnerships. He explained that while the presumption would be that
the pharmaceutical company would bear most of the liability, the NGO is
ultimately responsible for the storage and distribution of the drug and it
could be argued that the NGO would be liable for issues that arise on the
ground. However, few NGOs would have the resources to represent all of
the in-country partners who are also part of the supply chain. Thus, it is
necessary to consider various risk mitigation strategies, such as insurance.
Brown said that Gavi indemnifies and holds harmless any of the
parties that fund a program regarding product liability. It also builds
provisions that national governments will be responsible and Gavi will
not be liable for in-country issues into its MOUs with national govern-
ments. He acknowledged that these provisions do not prevent a class
action lawsuit being brought in the United States, but the reality is that the
NGO is implementing a program on behalf of the national government
in this scenario. Often with PPPs, said Brown, many of the partners have
privileges and immunities, and they invoke those and drop out of the
PPP, leaving a limited number of partners, often foundations, to bear the
cost of litigation.
Marks returned the panel to a point Brown raised earlier regarding
how to handle a situation where more than one company manufactures a
vaccine. One approach would be to issue a tender or request for proposal
that would be inherently competitive, but doing so would not be appro-
priate when one of the manufacturers is a member of the PPP. Wenderoth
said this situation is why the U.S. Department of State has internal dis-
cussions with the program office before considering being part of a PPP
that delve into why one particular company will be a partner over its
competitors. “We cannot be seen as giving preference to any individual or
company,” said Wenderoth. “It is critical that the program office explain
that objective criteria were applied in each instance where a private-sector
partner is engaged in a potential partnership with us.” If the program
office cannot define those objective criteria, the U.S. Department of State
will not join the partnership.
This would be a difficult situation for Gavi, said Brown, because it

is hard to imagine a situation where a pharmaceutical company would

have competitors and donate products without an ulterior motive, such
as the desire to be first in a market or to be perceived as being endorsed
by association with the U.S. government or an organization such as Gavi.
The key issue here, he said, is to examine those ulterior motives and deal
with them in an MOU. “This is a complex situation because you may have
a specific goal that you want to address and there could be a clear reason
why this manufacturer is appropriate for this scenario,” said Brown.
Changing topics, Marks introduced the question of deciding on the
appropriate governance structure for a partnership. “Do you create an
independent organization or will it be nested within one of the partner
organizations?” she asked. “What does voting power look like? How do
you resolve conflict? How do you ensure that you are representing the
fiduciary duty of your own organization vis a vis that of the partnership
itself?” Brooks said that answering those questions starts with the core
group of organizations who are coming to the table with a common goal.
In his experience at Gavi, Brown has found that operating as an indepen-
dent entity, rather than being nested within an international organization,
allows the entity to enter into creative deals to meet the project goals
that might not be possible within the rules and procedures of a parent
organization. He shared that he has conversations at least once per year
with partnerships and programs that want to move outside of a nested
relationship.
Unlike a large-scale partnership like Gavi, said Nathani, most PPPs
have a defined end, and it is important to define the ultimate objectives
of a particular PPP before deciding on a governance structure. If there
is a limited objective, a secretariat structure where every partner has an
equal seat at the table is appropriate. However, the issue of governance
structure becomes far more complicated and difficult to navigate when
the PPP has a broader objective and scope.
Marks added a final dimension to the scenario: the partners agree on
the objective but are divided on the approach. In this case, the NGO and
multilateral organization want to ensure broad coverage and are willing
to take great efforts to find hard-to-reach children. The U.S. government
has prioritized impact. The foundation is focused on sustainability and
wants to ensure that there is a plan for absorbing costs in the future. The
pharmaceutical company wants to operate at scale. None of these goals
conflict with the objective, said Marks, but finding a way to harmonize
the philosophical, strategic, and cultural differences among the partners
is still necessary. Miller shared that this situation arises regularly and the
important first step is developing the MOU in a way that is transparent
about the different motivations, roles, and responsibilities of each party.
In his experience, if the overall goal is important enough to all of the part-

ners, these questions can be addressed and the details worked out, but
getting these issues on the table early is critical. He added that it is impor-
tant to include provisions for a dispute resolution process in an MOU to
manage inevitable unexpected developments that can lead to conflict.
DISCUSSION
Muhammad Pate asked the panel how a PPP might address conflicts
between the partnership agreement and laws of the nations in which the
partnership will work. Brown said that most MOUs would include lan-
guage stating that each party must comply with national and local laws
regardless of where the organization is established. Wenderoth agreed
that this must be dictated in the MOU. She noted that this can create an
issue for the U.S. Department of State if it has an employee on the govern-
ing board or secretariat because that individual cannot bind the U.S. gov-
ernment to another country’s laws. She said that if the U.S. Department
of State oversaw procurement, for example, it would follow U.S. federal
rules on procurement while ensuring that it is not overtly violating an
in-country regulation.
Justin Koester from Medtronic commented that a manufacturer may
be incentivized to join a PPP if the PPP itself has the potential to create
a market where one does not exist. Wenderoth responded with concern
that these PPPs may not be a place where the U.S. Department of State
should get involved. Miller responded that in these situations, the foun-
dation ensures that its funds are used to further charitable purposes and
not create a profit motive for a commercial enterprise. Gavi, as well as the
Global Fund, recognize that they often create market opportunities for a
company, and they have a framework to evaluate these scenarios. Miller
noted that innovative companies seeking market opportunities can play
an important role in helping Gavi find solutions to difficult problems with
the potential to create a winning situation for everyone.
Cate O’Kane pointed out that giving a company first-in-market status
can also mean that company was first to raise its hand and be ready to act.
It may be possible, then, to structure an agreement that allows competi-
tors to join the partnership or provide products later. Wenderoth replied
that this was a new insight for her and gives her a new way to think
about participating in a partnership if it provides a mechanism that would
allow similarly situated private-sector entities to join later. Brooks com-
mented that his company often learns of new ways to address problems or
improve the way it does its business by participating in PPPs. He added
that as someone who worked in government before joining industry, he
believes there is a role for the U.S. government in creating opportunities
to solve difficult problems in public health.

Jeffrey L. Sturchio from Rabin Martin noted that the United States
has the Millennium Challenge Corporation, an independent U.S. foreign
aid agency, as well as USAID, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency,
and others that have been shaping markets in developing economies for
decades. The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, through
its contributions to the Global Fund and the establishment of the Partner-
ship for Supply Chain Management, has been instrumental in creating
one of the largest markets in Africa and other parts of the developing
world for antiretroviral medicines. The key to each of these mechanisms
is that the partners disclose their interests, that there is transparency, and
that the partnerships create a fair opportunity for companies to partici-
pate and benefit. “Creating those markets actually does help to accom-
plish the good that many of these partnerships are set up to do, so I do
not see those as in conflict,” said Sturchio. “It is just a question of using
these principles to manage issues of transparency, accountability, and
impact.”
Brenda Colatrella from Merck noted that risk and risk management
are important components of managing conflicts of interest. When work-
ing with lawyers to structure partnerships, she has perceived a desire
to manage to zero risk. Miller said that the Gates Foundation does not
manage to zero risk because that would severely affect its ability to have
an impact, so it tries to be solution focused. “In some cases there may be
a high degree of risk, but the potential reward and impact on our target
beneficiaries is such that it is worth taking that risk,” said Miller. He said
he does not see his role as managing to zero risk but instead as finding
solutions. Nathani said her role is not to manage to zero risk but to make
sure everyone understands the potential risks so they can make informed
decisions about costs and benefits.
Responding to a question about whether it would be possible to
develop a gold standard agreement or framework that could guide PPPs,
Miller replied that there can be best practices and lessons learned, but
each partnership is unique in terms of the nature of the participants, geog-
raphies, and goals. As a final comment, Brooks said the critical question to
ask is what is the purpose of the PPP. In his opinion, staying focused on
the partnership’s central purpose can help mitigate the other challenges.

Examining Lessons Learned from

the Development and Iterative
Improvement of Public–Private
Partnerships and Their Governance
I
n the workshop’s fourth session, five panelists shared lessons learned
from development and operations of PPPs and their governance struc-
tures. The panelists—Danielle R ollmann from Pfizer, Lauren Marks
from the U.S. Department of State, BT Slingsby from the Global Health
Innovative Technology Fund, Jeffrey L. Sturchio from Rabin Martin, and
Sonal Mehta from Alliance India—discussed lessons learned from experi-
ences in determining governance needs and mechanisms based on part-
nership goals and engaging partners and other stakeholders in decision
making. In addition, the panelists delved into the creation of iterative pro-
cesses for continuously improving governance and how they approached
adjusting to the evolving priorities of PPP partners and the global health
environment. Table 4-1, included at the end of the chapter, provides an
overview of the five partnerships included in this session. The text in this
chapter summarizes the experiences and lessons learned shared by the
panelists. Following the panel presentations, Clarion Johnson moderated
an open discussion with the workshop participants.
ACCESS ACCELERATED (AA)

Access Accelerated (AA), explained Danielle Rollmann, is a multi
year program to sustainably address access barriers to care for non
communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries. The collec-
tive goal was conceived of and endorsed by CEOs of the 20+ companies
that belong to this partnership. AA is composed of three elements. The
27

first, said Rollmann, includes a commitment from the member compa-

nies to do more work toward AA’s goal. The second element is a broad
partnership with the World Bank on pilot programs in lower-income
countries focused on strengthening local health systems by enhancing
primary care, screening, diagnosis, and treatment of noncommunicable
diseases. The third element is supporting disease-specific partnerships,
the first of which provided seed funding for the Union for International
Cancer Control (UICC) City Cancer Challenge, a multisectoral initiative
supporting cities with more than one million people to take the lead in
designing, planning, and implementing cancer treatment solutions as
a means of increasing the number of individuals with access to quality
cancer treatments.1
Since the launch, AA partners have initiated or expanded more than
20 company-driven programs. At the time of the workshop, the World
Bank was in the process of designing three pilots that were pending for-
mal announcements, and UICC had started working with three “learning
cities.” The World Bank-partnered Kenya pilot2 has now begun opera-
tions, with a second due to launch in 2018, and the UICC has begun
working with a fourth learning city. AA has been working with the Boston
University School of Public Health to measure and evaluate progress. The
expectation is that these activities will improve patients’ lives in ways
that can be quantified and that the partnership will be able to leverage
the results from the pilots toward a roadmap for sustainably addressing
noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries. “Know-
ing that we cannot do this alone, we are hoping that through working
together in these types of collaborations, we will build more robust multi-
sector partnerships to drive these types of improvements, and that we will
serve as an illustration of the impact that PPPs can have as we advance
toward sustainable health system environments,” said Rollmann.
AA has three forms of governance: one for the 20+ participating
companies, a second for its relationship with UICC, and a third for its
partnership with the World Bank. The governance structure for its corpo-
rate partners reflects the differences among the companies; each has its
own starting point with regard to existing programs, processes, resources,
and footprint. Rollmann explained that the companies are goal oriented
and share a belief in collective decision making. The governance struc-
ture includes committees, working groups, nomination processes, and
a secretariat. A primary role of the secretariat, which is hosted by the
1 See https://www.uicc.org/what-we-do/convening/ccan-2025-city-cancer-challenge (ac-
cessed January 25, 2018).

2 See https://accessaccelerated.org/day-1world-bank-access-accelerated-county-pilots-
launched-tackle-ncd-crisis (accessed April 4, 2018).

EXAMINING LESSONS LEARNED 29
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations

(IFPMA) and has a dedicated staff, is to ensure there is robust informa-
tion sharing among the partners. Each participating company has a seat
on the steering committee that meets regularly and serves as the core
decision-making body. There is an operating committee comprised of the
two co-chairs of the initiative, the chairs of each of the six working groups,
representatives from one smaller company and one Japanese company (as
steering committee calls may not always be convenient for all given time
zones), a representative of the secretariat, and the IFPMA director general.
The focus of the six working groups includes interface with the World
Bank, the UICC, and with the companies, metrics, communications, and
stakeholder outreach. AA is flexible and allows members to choose which
working groups they serve.
In Rollmann’s opinion, AA has effectively built into its governance
structure a process for continual learning and refinement. Twice yearly,
the secretariat contacts each member company to do a formal check-in
to ensure everyone is informed about the program’s progress, to answer
questions, and to receive feedback. She noted that each of the World Bank
and UICC partners has its own governance structure that AA respects
while still ensuring there is alignment and accountability for the initiative.
As a result, AA established explicit rules of engagement that were influ-
enced strongly by the governance principles of the companies, as well as
by the World Bank and UICC. Stakeholder engagement, said Rollmann,
is handled by each of the partners, including UICC and the World Bank.
The company CEOs have been clear about the importance of measur-
ing results and sharing learning. The independent Boston University team
has established a framework with common metrics across programs to
aggregate the data from each partner’s efforts (the measurement frame-
work is described in detail in Chapter 6). “We are hopeful that through
this [initiative] we will know the impact we had and also [can] start to
build the knowledge . . . for a road map,” Rollmann explained. In closing,
she said that the lessons AA has learned include the value of establish-
ing a common vision and upfront commitment, being thoughtful about
where consistency is needed and where flexibility can be designed into
the partnership, and the importance of communication and face-to-face
meetings. Other lessons have included the importance of building a com-
mon language across partners and allocating the time and resources to
solicit feedback from the partners.

DETERMINED, RESILIENT, EMPOWERED,

AIDS-FREE, MENTORED, AND SAFE (DREAMS)
The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
DREAMS program is a $385 million multisectoral partnership devoted to
preventing HIV transmission among adolescent girls and young women.
To achieve this objective, explained Lauren Marks, she and her colleagues
realized they would need to focus beyond the health system by address-
ing education, economic empowerment, and family planning. By broad-
ening the scope beyond health, DREAMS has engaged a broader group
of stakeholders who may not have had a primary interest in joining a
partnership focused on HIV/AIDS.
DREAMS’s approach is to layer services to prevent HIV infection,
explained Marks. Its core package of interventions includes empowering
girls to reduce their risk for HIV and violence; identifying the “typical”
sexual partners of adolescent girls and young women in order to target
highly effective HIV interventions; strengthening families economically
and in terms of their ability to parent positively; and educating girls,
young women, and young men and mobilizing communities. DREAMS
began in 10 sub-Saharan East African nations and later added 5 more
countries.
The five partners in DREAMS are the Bill & Melinda Gates Founda-
tion; Girl Effect; Johnson & Johnson; Gilead; and ViiV Healthcare, and
each provides a unique contribution to the partnership. Girl Effect is
launching a culture brand to reach the most vulnerable girls and boys
with DREAMS messaging. In addition to informing programming and
amplifying messaging, Johnson & Johnson listens to and brings girls’
voices to life to tell success stories and helps the project understand who
these girls’ influences are, what their family life is like, and who their
sexual partners are to enable human-centered design of the interventions.
The Gates Foundation has taken the lead in and funds implementation
research and impact evaluation, and Gilead is providing a financial con-
tribution to purchase pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. ViiV Healthcare
provides grants to community-based organizations to provide capacity
building.
The partnership began with the development and signing of a non-
binding MOU. The MOU, said Marks, serves to hold the partners account-
able to their commitments to the partnership. “When people have to
quantify, write down, and sign a document that says these are our roles,
responsibilities, and contributions . . . it adds a level of formality to the
partnership,” she explained. “It is also where we lay out the framework
for some of our governance.”

One of the hardest steps the partnership had to take in its early meet-
ings, said Marks, was naming the initiative; crafting an acronym that
conveys a sense of hope and positive thinking while taking political sen-
sitivities into account was a challenge. Then, the partners had to develop
a logo. The private-sector partners were able to bring their expertise in
branding and marketing to facilitate the naming and logo development
process. The partners then had many discussions about the governance
structure, particularly on membership, how to add new members, and
how much of a financial commitment would be needed for a new member
to have a seat at the table. The partners discussed whether there should
be a partnership director and if the secretariat should have its own leader-
ship, governance structure, or staff; where it would be housed; and what
its role should be. The partners also established working groups, which
Marks said were similar to those of AA, and developed provisions for
decision making, dispute resolution, and responsibilities. One challenge
was accommodating the U.S. government’s role as the largest funder and
its veto power over how the partnership spent its funds. The partnership
wanted some flexibility in its governance structure so it would be able to
adapt to changing circumstances and add new partners and subcompo-
nents. She noted that the partners had to agree on what success looked
like so the partnership could have the proper metrics in place to measure
success.
During the development phase, DREAMS held workshops in each of
the 10 countries where it had initially worked to listen to the beneficiaries’
vision of what the program should provide. That engagement led the
partners to take a proactive approach to identify partners who could pro-
vide unique value. Marks explained that this effort included a landscape
analysis of current related initiatives.
GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY (GHIT) FUND

The Global Health Innovative Technology (GHIT) Fund, based in
Japan, grew out of a 2011 conversation between BT Slingsby and Tachi
Yamada about the Japanese pharmaceutical industry’s absence from
global health initiatives despite ranking third in the world in new drug
development. “We were trying to create a fund to act as a catalytic entity
to bring more partners from Japan to the global fight against these dis-
eases like malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and many of the neglected
tropical diseases,” explained Slingsby. By June 2013, Slingsby had brought
together eight partners to form the GHIT Fund, a partnership with an
initial endowment of $100 million. The government of Japan, working
with the United Nations Development Programme, provided $50 million,
with five companies and the Gates Foundation matching the amount. As

of June 2017, the fund had grown to 26 partners, an endowment of $350

million, and six sponsors who provide in-kind donations that lower the
fund’s management costs to under 5 percent of its annual budget.
In August 2011, the eight founding partners met and formed a launch
committee that, over the course of 1 year through biweekly meetings,
developed the fund’s articles of incorporation, bylaws, iterative processes,
and governance structure, including committees, councils, and boards.
The launch committee also established the fund’s investment scope and
mechanism and access policy, as well as a launch strategy. Today, the fund
has invested in more than 60 global partnerships, each of which includes
a Japanese entity and a non-Japanese entity. As of November 2017, these
partnerships have started six clinical trials in South America and Africa.
The fundamental purpose of the fund is to act as a catalyst for engag-
ing Japanese entities in global health initiatives, and in that respect the
fund has been successful, said Slingsby. He noted that the governance
structure established by the launch committee was designed to manage
conflicts of interests and balance power among partners. The basic gover-
nance question the launch committee sought to answer was how to create
a PPP in which the same entities that are funding the partnership can
become beneficiaries of it. The answer was to create a firewall between the
council and the rest of the organization. The managing council includes
all corporate partners as well as the major funders, but the council is not
involved in any of the decision-making processes regarding investments,
strategy, scope, or portfolio decisions. As a result, the partner companies
can apply for grants from the fund.
The fund’s board includes only one funder, the Japanese government,
with the philanthropic partners, the Gates Foundation and Wellcome
Trust, holding observer seats on the board. The Gates Foundation and
Wellcome Trust sit on the selection committee that makes recommen-
dations to the board. The governance structure includes a criterion for
investment that states every funded partnership must be global, consist-
ing of at least one partner from Japan and one from outside of Japan.
Slingsby described some persistent governance challenges for GHIT.
The diversity of partners and their participation at different levels of the
governance structure necessitates active awareness raising among the
partners on the overall governance structure and process. Members serv-
ing on governing bodies volunteer their time, and sustained leadership
and engagement from high-level experts require thoughtful management.
GHIT is a public Japanese entity with a global mission and international
partners that, at times, requires aligning differing legal standards.

AFRICAN COMPREHENSIVE
HIV/AIDS PARTNERSHIPS (ACHAP)
When ACHAP3 was established in 2000, some two-thirds of HIV-
positive individuals lived in Africa, and very few had access to treatment.
Jeffrey L. Sturchio, who was involved in ACHAP’s development and now
serves on its board, noted that in Botswana, HIV/AIDS had become an
existential crisis. Life expectancy, which reached almost 70 years of age in
the 1990s, had plummeted to the low 30s.
At the time, Uganda had been experiencing success in addressing
its HIV/AIDS epidemic using a prevention strategy, but no initiative
had tried to deal with the entire spectrum of prevention, treatment, and
care and build a health system infrastructure to manage the epidemic in
a country like Botswana. ACHAP was founded to test whether it was
possible to tackle HIV/AIDS on that scale and to ascertain if involving
the private sector to help organize and manage projects would increase
the impact. Merck & Co., Inc., began looking for partners in this effort,
and the government of Botswana and the Bill & Melinda Gates Founda-
tion joined Merck and the Merck Company Foundation to create ACHAP.
Structured as an NGO in Botswana, the board included two members
from the Gates Foundation, two from Merck, and an independent expert
well known to key stakeholders in Botswana.
ACHAP’s goal, said Sturchio, was to address the threat of the epi-
demic through an integrated, country-led approach to prevention, treat-
ment, and care. During its first few years, the drop in life expectancy
reversed through the partnership’s support of a broad-based national
treatment program.4 An important element for success was the president
of Botswana’s strong public support for the country’s efforts to control
the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This was exemplified by his direct involvement
in establishing routine testing for HIV throughout the country. “It helped
individuals feel more comfortable about getting a test and then becoming
eligible for and enrolling in treatment,” said Sturchio. He added that the
opt-out testing procedure that Botswana pioneered was soon adopted
by the World Health Organization, Joint United Nations Programme on
HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention as the worldwide standard for HIV/AIDS testing.
One of the lessons learned from ACHAP is the critical importance of
political will and commitment that was evident in Botswana by the presi-
3 For additional background on the origins and early years of ACHAP, see Distlerath et
al., 2004; Hilts, 2005; Ramiah and Reich, 2005, 2006.

4 For more information on this program, see http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/
handle/10665/43065/9241592400.pdf;jsessionid=3382DEDC60C338C50F221DF6CB3BDE64?
sequence=1 (accessed April 4, 2018).

dent leading the charge. At the same time, said Sturchio, it was important
for the Gates Foundation and Merck to realize that they were working in a
different organizational and national culture, which had a critical impact
on the partnership. Country ownership was also fundamental, he said, as
ACHAP was integrated into national strategies and priorities. Building
local capacity and engaging effected communities were also key elements
of the strategy. ACHAP’s governance structure included clearly identified
objectives, roles, and responsibilities, as well as an effective mechanism
for communicating among stakeholders and agreed-upon metrics. Among
the key metrics, said Sturchio, were the number of individuals treated and
the mortality rate.
To promote alignment, transparency, and accountability, ACHAP
worked closely with the National AIDS Coordinating Agency, partici-
pated in the national forum of development partners, and established the
Madikwe Forum5 for the ACHAP board and permanent secretaries of all
government departments involved in the AIDS response to meet regularly
to identify and work through bottlenecks. The permanent secretaries
would assign specific ministries to tackle those bottlenecks and report
back at the next meeting of the forum.
The ACHAP board, said Sturchio, had its own processes for ensuring
that the two funding partners were able to work closely with management
on critical issues. In addition, an international advisory group provided
information and counsel about the global response and what was work-
ing elsewhere on preventing and treating HIV/AIDS. The ACHAP board
also decided to invest in monitoring, evaluation, and dissemination of the
results with partners and other audiences.
From ACHAP’s inception, the founding members were concerned
about sustainability, but it was not a primary issue in the board’s planning
in its early years, as the focus was on coping with a crisis situation. In
time, however, there was discussion and planning to move from dealing
solely with HIV/AIDS to a broader emphasis on population health in the
country. The resulting sustainability plan involved building on ACHAP’s
core capabilities in program management and implementation and on
diversifying sponsors. The formal partnership ended in 2014 (although
Merck continued to donate its antiretroviral medicines to Botswana until
2016), but ACHAP still operates in Botswana. It has worked with PEPFAR
and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and has also
become the first private-sector principal recipient of the Global Fund in
5 Formore information on the Madikwe Forum, see George, G., C. Reardon, J. Gunthorp, T.
Moeti, I. Chingombe, L. Busang, and G. Musuka. 2012. The Madikwe Forum: A comprehen-
sive partnership for supporting governance of Botswana’s HIV and AIDS response. African
Journal of AIDS Research 11(1):27–35.

Botswana. ACHAP is also working with the World Bank and has begun
a project with 10 members of the Southern African Development Com-
munity on various health challenges, such as tuberculosis among mine
workers.
Regarding ACHAP’s impact, Botswana went from having the highest
adult prevalence of HIV infection to becoming the first country to achieve
universal antiretroviral therapy coverage and the first African country to
reach UNAIDS’s 90-90-90 targets.6 Life expectancy had rebounded to 66
years of age by 2015, and adult HIV prevalence had fallen from nearly 40
percent to 22.2 percent in 2015. ACHAP also supported Botswana’s intro-
duction of universal coverage for prevention of mother-to-child transmis-
sion, which cut the percentage of HIV-positive infants from 40 percent
to under 4 percent. With ACHAP’s collaboration and financial support,
Botswana also built a national network of HIV clinics; developed national
counseling and testing infrastructure and services; developed a cadre of
physicians, nurses, and community health workers to build the national
response; implemented and scaled up safe voluntary male circumci-
sion and behavior change programs for prevention; and developed local
capacity to address TB/HIV co-infection. The important factors that led
to these successes, said Sturchio, were that ACHAP focused on alignment
with government and all partners, on being adaptable as circumstances
changed, on learning by doing, and on being willing to change priorities if
it became clear that an activity was not going to have the desired impact.
“We have to realize that partnerships like this are a process, not just
an event,” said Sturchio in concluding his remarks. “When you create it,
that is just the beginning. As ACHAP’s experience clearly shows, a focus
on adaptability and learning is really critical to long-term success.” He
noted that while today’s ACHAP looks nothing like ACHAP in 2000, it
continues to make an important contribution both to progress against the
HIV/AIDS epidemic in Botswana and, more broadly now, to population
health in southern Africa.
THE AVAHAN EXPERIENCE

The Avahan program, which operated between 2004 and 2014, was
implemented in two phases in the six Indian states that accounted for 70
percent of those infected with HIV in the country at the time. Sonal Metha
6 By 2020, 90 percent of all people living with HIV will know their HIV status. By 2020,
90 percent of all people with diagnosed HIV infection will receive sustained antiretroviral
therapy. By 2020, 90 percent of all people receiving antiretroviral therapy will have viral
suppression (http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2017/90-90-90 [accessed
January 29, 2018]).

explained that the first phase of Avahan focused primarily on controlling

HIV through scaled prevention response; the second phase focused on
the sustainability of Avahan’s achievements during the transition from
external funding to local government ownership. Mehta emphasized that
a significant change between the phases was the strong focus on com-
munity engagement in the latter phase. Partnerships were formed with
46 government clinics working in rural areas, and the program trained
hundreds of outreach workers.
Prior to Avahan, the Indian government’s health system focused
solely on HIV/AIDS treatment rather than prevention, said Mehta. Much
of Avahan’s work, she said, was with female sex workers in rural areas,
and between 2007 and 2010, the number of female sex workers access-
ing services at the partnership clinics increased from 1,627 to more than
15,000 (Kokku et al., 2014). “It is relatively easy to talk about HIV and
sexually transmitted diseases in urban centers, but to talk about that
in rural areas is . . . much more difficult,” said Mehta, “and to involve
government clinics was even more difficult.” However, opinion surveys
found that most female sex workers accessing services at the partnership
clinics expressed confidence that they would continue to receive effec-
tive services from the government facilities even if the program ended,
which Mehta observed was one sign that the program was successful.
Another measure of success, she said, was the extent to which the HIV
epidemic has been reduced significantly in the southern states where
Avahan worked.
Avahan had five levels in its governance structure: organizational
governance focused on processes and systems, donor oversight to regu-
larly review progress, partner meetings for ongoing coordination and
mutual accountability, government oversight to monitor role clarity and
expectations, and the community advisory group. Mehta commented
that the community advisory group was the most effective governance
mechanism for increasing accountability across the partners; the com-
munity advisory group was also more effective at demanding that the
government be accountable for meeting its responsibilities than Avahan
would have been by itself.
One of the most important lessons Mehta learned from this project
was that each actor had to have a clear responsibility and role and that
it was important that each actor understand its stake in the success of
the project. Another lesson was learning the importance of involving the
individuals most affected by the work. Real advocacy, said Mehta, came
from the targets of the interventions. It was also important to set realistic
expectations and clear boundaries for the partners. She also noted the
importance of respect and ideological agreement.

DISCUSSION
Clarion Johnson opened the discussion with a question for the panel-
ists: When they began putting their programs together, did they decide at
what point they would consider their efforts a failure and stop their pro-
grams? Mehta replied that her program had a few small failures. Early on,
the program came to a point where the Gates Foundation was not happy
with Avahan’s formation of community-based organizations (CBOs). “We
had decided that if they really take a stand, ‘no CBO formation, only HIV
control,’ then we would withdraw from the program,” she said. Marks
said that the DREAMS partnership set a 2-year deadline for reducing HIV
incidence by 40 percent, with the 2-year window ending in December
2017. Sturchio said that while ACHAP was having “tremendous success”
with treatment, HIV incidence was not declining at the desired rate, par-
ticularly among young people. As a result, ACHAP started focusing on
prevention and behavior change, using insights from social marketing,
behavioral economics, and learning from previous work on health promo-
tion and prevention.
Scott Ratzan from the Anheuser-Busch InBev Foundation noted that
many of the programs discussed over the course of the day focused on
infectious diseases and, for the most part, delivering effective treatments.
He asked the panelists if there were lessons to learn from their efforts
that could be applied when there is not an easy product, such as a drug
or vaccine, available as the answer to the global health challenge being
addressed. Marks replied that a multidisciplinary approach, one that
engages doctors, engineers, anthropologists, and representatives of a vari-
ety of industries, will enable lessons from these programs to be applied
to public health to change behavior and bring a focus on wellness and
prevention to PPPs. “I think it is going to take some creativity and doing
things differently and not talking to the same public health people, but
really looking outside of our usual orbits,” said Marks.
Rollmann remarked that industry alone will not be able to drive solu-
tions, which is why AA is engaging with the World Bank and NGOs. She
said that she and her colleagues have heard from individuals they work
with that the demand for efforts on noncommunicable diseases is increas-
ing, and they are looking for the right partners to advance this conversa-
tion. As far as forming new partnerships to address noncommunicable
diseases, Sturchio said that governments need to be more proactive about
approaches that use existing instruments and tools, including laws and
regulations, to engage more systematically with the private sector. He
suggested that if there are more individuals who can work comfortably
across sectors, who know how to translate what government thinks into

the way that private industry and civil society think, and vice versa, prog-
ress could be facilitated.
Regina Rabinovich asked the panelists if any of them had established
mechanisms for dealing with disagreements among partners. Sturchio
answered that the Madikwe Forum was established in part for that pur-
pose. While there were not many disputes, the forum proved to be an
effective mechanism for addressing and resolving disputes by having
the right people around the table and a clear process for identifying the
issue, fact-finding, brainstorming for potential solutions, and following
up on implementation. Marks shared an example of how data served to
solve a disagreement. The U.S. Department of State was adamant that it
wanted the DREAMS program to work with adolescent girls ages 15 to 24,
but one partner wanted to work with younger girls. The solution was to
commission some research that showed the importance of working with
younger girls, and so the U.S. Department of State changed its policy and
DREAMS now reaches those younger girls. Slingsby said that formally,
GHIT addresses disagreements through the committees, the board, the
selection committee, or the council. However, there have not been many
disagreements, and in his opinion soft diplomacy within the organization
to align partners behind closed doors is the key.
Robert Bollinger from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medi-
cine asked the panelists how they define sustainability or scale. Mehta
said that in India, most states have transitioned successfully from Avahan
support to government support. Her concern, though, is that technical
knowledge can be lost during such transitions.
Jo Ivey Boufford then asked if any programs had been supportive of
or resistant to transitioning from a disease-specific program to using the
same infrastructure for broader care. Sturchio said that when ACHAP
facilitated and financially supported building a network of clinics, the
clinics were initially intended to serve as infectious disease control centers
but ultimately served as an investment in building health care infrastruc-
ture for delivering a range of primary care interventions. He also noted
that when the newly elected president of Botswana had different priori-
ties, ACHAP adapted to that reality and discovered that its capabilities
in program design and implementation were transferable to other areas
and to countries outside of Botswana. Moreover, those capabilities were
sought out by new funders, and ACHAP is now a major implementer
of the work on voluntary male circumcision that PEPFAR has been sup-
porting in Botswana, and it is working with the Global Fund in other
countries.
Rollmann said that one of the goals of AA’s pilots with the World
Bank was to explore how existing infrastructure can be used for addi-
tional purposes. She noted that building a health system infrastructure

can address one of the barriers to appropriate care in general in these

countries. In addition, AA is looking for ways to extend the impact of
the programs companies already have in order to give a greater benefit
to patients in the countries in which its partners work. In Mehta’s opin-
ion, the services her program delivered had to be specific to context and
population and would not have worked if those facilities were delivering
general health care.

TABLE 4-1 Partnerships Presented at the Workshop on October 26,

2017
Overview of Partnerships Presented in Workshop Session IV: Examining Lessons
Learned from the Development and Iterative Improvement of Public–Private
Partnerships and Their Governance
Target
Operating Country/
Years Region Partners Focus
2017– Worldwide Initial Sponsors: 28 Moving
Access Accelerated
Pharmaceutical companies noncommunicable

and associations: Almirall, disease (NCD) care
Astellas, Bayer, Bristol- forward: access to
Myers Squibb, Celgene, NCD prevention and
Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, care
Eisai, Eli Lilly and
Company, GlaxoSmithKline,
Johnson & Johnson,
Menarini, Merck, MSD,
Novartis, Pfizer, Roche,
Sanofi, Shionogi, Shire,
Sumitomo Dainippon
Pharma, Takeda, UCB,
International Federation
of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers &
Associations (IFPMA), BIO,
EFPIA, JPMA, and PhRMA
Partners: World Bank,
Union for International
Cancer Control (UICC)

Governance Structure Documented Partnership

Partnership Goal (publicly available) Outcomes/Impacts
To support the United http://www. http://www.
Nations Sustainable accessaccelerated.org accessaccelerated.org/
Development Goal to (accessed April 16, 2018) initiatives (accessed
reduce premature deaths April 16, 2018)
from NCDs by one-third
by 2030
continued

TABLE 4-1 Continued

Target
Operating Country/
2014– Sub-Saharan The U.S. President’s Prevention among
DREAMS
Africa; Haiti Emergency Plan for AIDS adolescent girls and

Relief (PEPFAR); the Bill & young women
(Botswana, Melinda Gates Foundation;
Cote Girl Effect; Johnson &
D’Ivoire, Johnson; Gilead Sciences;
Kenya, ViiV Healthcare
Lesotho,
Malawi,
Mozambique,
Namibia,
Rwanda,
South Africa,
Swaziland,
Tanzania,
Uganda,
Zambia,
Zimbabwe)


To reduce HIV infections http://www. https://www.pepfar.
by 40 percent among dreamspartnership.org gov/documents/
adolescent girls and (accessed April 16, 2018) organization/252380.pdf
young women in 10 sub- (2017) (accessed April 16,
Saharan African countries https://www.pepfar. 2018)
by 2017 gov/partnerships/ppp/
index.htm (accessed https://www.pepfar.
April 16, 2018) gov/documents/
Country-specific targets: organization/247602.pdf
https://www.pepfar. http://ghpro.dexisonline. (2017) (accessed April 16,
gov/partnerships/ppp/ com/sites/default/ 2018)
dreams/c69041.htm files/PEPFAR%20
(accessed April 16, 2018) Final%20DREAMS%20 http://www.genderhealth.
Guidance%202015.pdf org/files/uploads/change/
(2015) (accessed April 16, publications/CHANGE_
2018) Dreams_Report_Updated.
pdf (2016) (accessed
April 16, 2018)
Innovation Challenge:
http://www.
dreamspartnership.
org/innovation-
challenge/#innovation
(accessed April 16, 2018)
continued

TABLE 4-1 Continued

Target
Operating Country/
2013– Worldwide Full partners: Japanese Research; product
GHIT FUND
Ministry of Foreign development

Affairs; Japanese Ministry
of Health, Labour and
Welfare; United Nations
Development Programme
(UNDP); Astellas; Daiichi
Sankyo Company; Eisai
Company; Shionogi & Co.;
Takeda; Gates Foundation;
Wellcome Trust; Chugai
Pharmaceutical Co.; Eisai
Co.; Fujifilm; Shionogi
Associate partners: Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co.; Sysmex
Affiliate partners:
GlaxoSmithKline; Johnson
& Johnson; Kyowa Kirin;
Merck; Mitsubishi Tanabe
Pharma; Nipro; Sumitomo
Dainippon Pharma


To facilitate international https://www.ghitfund. https://ghitfund.org/
partnerships that bring org/about/governance/ impact/impact (accessed
Japanese innovation, leadership (accessed April 16, 2018)
investment, and April 16, 2018)
leadership to the global http://5th.ghitfund.org/
fight against infectious https://www. replenishment/en (2017)
diseases and poverty in forbes.com/sites/ (accessed April 16, 2018)
the developing world medidata/2015/04/30/
investing-in-drugs- https://www.ghitfund.org/
that-wont-make- general/annualreport (2016)
money/#1024b2c83bb6 (accessed April 16, 2018)
(2015) (accessed April 16,
2018)
http://www.thelancet.
com/journals/langlo/
article/PIIS2214-
109X(13)70055-X/abstract
2018)
http://www.nature.com/
nm/journal/v19/n12/
full/nm1213-1553.html
2018)
continued

TABLE 4-1 Continued

Target
Operating Country/
2003– India Bill & Melinda Gates Prevention,
Avahan
(Andhra Foundation; lead education, and

Pradesh, implementing partners; service
Karnataka, capacity-building partners;
Maharashtra, other supporting partners;
Tamil Nadu, monitoring and evaluation
Manipur, partners; knowledge-
Nagaland) building partners


To reduce HIV http://journals. http://www.thelancet.com/
transmission and plos.org/plosone/ journals/langlo/article/
lower the prevalence article?id=10.1371/ PIIS2214-109X(13)70083-4/
of sexually transmitted journal.pone.0136177 fulltext (2013) (accessed
infections in vulnerable (2015) (accessed April 16, April 16, 2018)
high-risk populations— 2018)
female sex workers, http://www.thelancet.com/
men who have sex https://www.ncbi.nlm. journals/lancet/article/
with men, transgender nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PIIS0140-6736(11)61390-1/
individuals, people who PMC3287554 (2011) abstract (2011) (accessed
inject drugs—through (accessed April 16, 2018) April 16, 2018)
prevention education and
services http://scholarworks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.
gvsu.edu/cgi/ nih.gov/pmc/articles/
viewcontent. PMC3287556 (2011)
cgi?article=1027&context= (accessed April 16, 2018)
spnareview (2009)
(accessed April 16, 2018) https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/
https://docs. PMC3287555 (2011)
gatesfoundation.org/ (accessed April 16, 2018)
documents/avahan_
hivprevention.pdf (2008) https://www.ncbi.nlm.
(accessed April 16, 2018) nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3287553 (2011)
https://docs.
gatesfoundation.org/
documents/avahan_
hivprevention.pdf (2008)
continued

TABLE 4-1 Continued

Target
Operating Country/
2000– Botswana Merck & Co., Inc.; Merck Prevention, care,
ACHAP
2014a Foundation; Bill & Melinda treatment, capacity

Gates Foundation; and the building, and systems
Government of Botswana strengthening
a The original ACHAP partnership ended in 2014. Today, ACHAP operates as an indepen-
dent entity with a broader health mandate and wider geographical focus while continuing
to build on and leverage its core competencies in the field of HIV/AIDS and related health
conditions. Its goal is to provide comprehensive, innovative, and catalytic solutions through
Public Private Community Partnerships (PPCPs) to achieve sustainable population health.
More information can be found at http://www.achap.org/index.php (accessed May 25,
2018).
SOURCES: Information in table was compiled from speakers Lauren Marks, Sonal Mehta,
Danielle Rollmann, BT Slingsby, and Jeffrey L. Sturchio, and distributed at the workshop as
preparatory material for their respective sessions.


To prevent and treat http://web.archive.org/ http://www.fsg.org/
HIV/AIDS in Botswana; web/20030322045745/ publications/adapting-
ACHAP, established in http://www.achap. through-crisis#download-
July 2000, supported the org:80/ area (2014)
goals of the government
of Botswana to decrease http://www.fsg.org/ http://www.
HIV incidence and publications/adapting- msdresponsibility.com/
significantly increase the through-crisis#download- wp-content/uploads/
rate of diagnosis and the area (2014) pdfs/key-initiatives_
treatment of the disease access-to-health_african-
by rapidly advancing https://www.cgdev. comprehensive-hivaids-
prevention programs, org/sites/default/ partnerships.pdf (2014)
health care access, files/archive/doc/
patient management, and events/6.06.07/ACHAP_ http://www.achap.org/
treatment of HIV/AIDS Presentation_June_6_ annual.php (2012, 2013,
Event.pdf (2007) 2014)
http://digitalcommons.
law.yale.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1080&context=
yjhple (2004)


Evaluating and Reporting on

Public–Private Partnerships
in Global Health
T
he workshop’s fifth session presented an initiative to develop a
framework to standardize measurement and reporting across
private-sector initiatives to improve access to noncommunicable
disease treatment and care. The presentation by Peter Rockers and
Veronika Wirtz from B oston University focused on the decision-making
process for the framework’s design and how it is being applied. Following
the presentation, the workshop participants engaged in a discussion with
the presenters, moderated by John Monahan from Georgetown University.
Rockers began the presentation with a comment about the prolif-
eration of PPPs in recent years and the worry that they may not have
achieved their desired impacts. In his opinion, this is where measurement
can benefit global health PPPs. “There is the opportunity that measure-
ment provides to identify those programs that do have the greatest impact
and start to invest more in them,” he said.
The framework that he and Wirtz presented was developed as part of
their work with the AA initiative that Danielle Rollmann described in the
previous workshop session. Rockers reminded the workshop that AA had
many partners involved in multiple programs taking place at the same
time. The framework’s unit of analysis focuses on the level of the indi-
vidual programs. In addition to developing the measurement framework,
Rockers and Wirtz’s role in AA includes three other primary aspects: cre-
ating the Access Observatory reporting system, building capacity among
the partners for measurement, and supporting the project to help specific
programs with measurement.
51

Rockers said that just as it was important for the partners to be trans-
parent about their principles, so too was it important at the beginning of
their engagement with the project to clearly articulate their principles as
academics and independent evaluators. These principles included being
transparent as partners, which manifested itself as building a system that
would be fully transparent in terms of the information and data that the
partners collect and report on as well as being transparent in their rela-
tionship with AA. Toward the latter, the Boston University team put its
master service agreement that they signed as independent evaluators onto
their website for every partner to see.
A second principle was the need to be flexible while maintain-
ing consistency. Flexibility was important, said Rockers, because of the
heterogeneity across the different programs operating under the AA
umbrella. At the same time, the framework had to be consistent to
enable synthesis across the programs. The third principle was to be
practical while maintaining rigor. Any framework, said Rockers, is only
as valuable as its usefulness in the field, but at the same time, the Boston
University team was committed to bringing rigor to measurement and
assessment activities.
The framework that Rockers, Wirtz, and their collaborators developed
has three main components. The first is a taxonomy of 11 strategies to
develop a simplified approach to categorizing the hundreds of different
programs in AA. The 11 strategies within the framework’s taxonomy are
community awareness and linkage to care, health service strengthening,
health service delivery, supply chain, financing, regulation, manufactur-
ing, product development research, licensing agreements, pricing scheme,
and medicine donation. Rockers noted that many programs use multiple
strategies. A logic model for each strategy laid out the pathways through
which program activities aimed to achieve the intended outcomes and
impacts, and each concept in each logic model had a corresponding indi-
cator with a clear definition. These indicators enabled the partners, pro-
gram designers, and implementers to collect and report standardized
data.
The Access Observatory mentioned earlier is a public website that
complements the framework and fulfills the Boston University team’s
transparency principle, said Rockers. It houses AA program descrip-
tions, collected data, and the methodologies for the data collection. He
noted that everyone will be able to access all of the information the part-
ners are collecting on these programs to compare and synthesize across
programs. From his and Wirtz’s perspective, the Access Observatory
will be the vehicle for generating a body of evidence across the various
strategies and programs to determine which ones are working best and
which ones are not meeting their goals and to start to move the entire

EVALUATING AND REPORTING ON PPPs IN GLOBAL HEALTH 53
initiative toward greater investments in those strategies that are most

cost-effective.
Wirtz then described the process by which the Boston University team
developed the framework, which included two points in the process when
the team received formal feedback from corporate partners, the World
Bank, and UICC. The first feedback received at 5 months, she said, helped
the team clarify terminology and descriptions of the metrics. The second
feedback opportunity, regarding the forms used to report into the Access
Observatory, occurred several months later.
To Wirtz, the most interesting part of the development process was
the tensions that arose and the opportunities and challenges those ten-
sions created to strengthen interactions among the partners. The sources
of tension included the commercial aims versus social aims, practical-
ity versus rigor, and confidentiality versus transparency. For example,
the programs in AA often had both commercial and social aims, and the
tension between these two was explicit in some of the training activities
when corporate partners questioned why measuring social aims would
benefit their objectives. The tension between confidentiality and trans-
parency can be seen in the pharmaceutical sector, as a pharmaceutical
company may want to report issues but is unable to because of regula-
tory restrictions. Similarly, the tension was apparent when the Boston
University team had to negotiate with the university’s legal team to post
the master service agreement on the Access Observatory.
Having a shared language enabled effective communication with
and among the partners when addressing these challenges. Developing a
shared language required careful listening, said Wirtz, to gain familiarity
with how the various partners used informal language. She and her col-
laborators and the partners went through a collective and iterative process
to develop the shared language and terminology and agreement on con-
cepts. As an example, Wirtz said that some of the corporate partners said
they use the term patient journey, and the Boston University team had to
first understand what the term meant, translate it into words all partners
could understand, and then find an adequate place for that concept in
the framework.
Turning to the two dimensions of governance—transparency and
accountability—that Michael Reich discussed in his opening presentation,
Wirtz said the framework addresses transparency to the public regard-
ing the scope of the program activities and the social impact of those
programs through the Access Observatory. However, the mechanism by
which measurement will address accountability is still a work in prog-
ress. “It is important because measurement for measurement’s sake is
not what we want,” said Wirtz. “We want measurement to result in
actionable progress and strategies in making these programs better.” Her

final point was that measurement requires commitment from the global
health community. Achieving better measurements, she said, requires
public investments, and the return on those investments would be trans-
parency, accountability, and shared learning.
DISCUSSION
John Monahan asked Wirtz and Rockers about how many people they
and their colleagues had to speak with to develop the shared language
and how they knew when they had succeeded in developing it. Wirtz
said she could not identify exactly how many people the Boston Univer-
sity team spoke with, but she noted that they spoke with representatives
from all 23 corporate partners, the World Bank, UICC, and the metrics
groups. Developing the language was an iterative process, and even now,
that process continues. An important part of the process, she said, was to
document these discussions and iterations. Rockers added that the public
health literature also contributed to the development of the common lan-
guage, and the team is now immersed in the business literature to further
develop the shared language.
Rollmann, who is engaged in the metrics efforts of AA, remarked that
one of the requests of the Boston University team was to develop a frame-
work to measure the aggregate results of diverse programs. She noted
that there are a range of companies within the AA initiative, and while
one company may have questioned Boston University about the need for
measurement of social aims, there are o thers that design programs with
social aims in mind and regularly publish results. That difference, she
said, stems from the companies’ diversity of experience. The companies
vary in both size and level of experience in designing and implement-
ing programs that support health system strengthening to advance non
communicable disease care and treatment.
Brenda Colatrella asked Rockers and Wirtz to further describe the
debate about practicality versus rigor and who makes the ultimate decision
about what is practical. Rockers replied that the point about practicality
versus rigor is one that comes up in every conversation he and his col-
leagues have with the corporate partners. From his perspective, learning
what is practical is a process and is not self-evident. The hope is that the
process of instituting measurements within the corporate partners will
evolve over time regarding the capacities that can be built and the resources
that can be made available. While his expectations are modest, he believes
that companies will report on the scope of program activities to start, with
a few instances of more rigorous evaluation. “The companies that are at the
point where they are ready to invest in that kind of evaluation are the ones

EVALUATING AND REPORTING ON PPPs IN GLOBAL HEALTH 55
that have a history of understanding the value of that kind of evidence,”

said Rockers.
Wirtz added that the Boston University team had extensive interac-
tions with companies on their current data collection processes and what
would be feasible in those contexts. She and her colleagues then offered
advice and support on what could be feasible in those specific contexts.
“Having the right balance is important and requires an intensive listening
exercise to understand what is done and how it is done and then with our
expertise in data collection to think about what could be done and what
resources are available,” said Wirtz.
Robert Bollinger asked how the team optimizes the quality of the
data when there are such diverse sources of data and a range of quality.
Rockers said that since the Access Observatory has his team’s name on it,
the team is responsible for ensuring that the data are of high enough qual-
ity to put them out in the public. However, the team cannot go to every
project site and validate the data, so the approach is to have as much
transparency as possible in reporting on the processes the program used
to collect the data. That information is captured on a form that each pro-
gram completes that says from where every indicator they report came.
In fact, he said, part of what his team has been instilling in the programs
and partners is a commitment to clearly understand where the data come
from and how they were collected. That can be an issue because the non-
governmental partner often collects the data.
Hanna Kettler from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation applauded
AA’s embrace of impact measurement as a core part of its activities, par-
ticularly given the diversity of the programs within the initiative. She
asked if the companies or programs are collecting the data or if there has
been an investment in building capacity to do evaluation at the program
level. Wirtz replied that the Boston University team and AA have started
an initiative to involve other institutions that are interested in evaluation.
In fact, one of her team’s aims is to be a convener for bringing together
interested institutions and building evaluation capacity in the global
health area in general.


Identifying Key Issues in the

Governance of Public–Private
Partnerships in Global Health
T
he objectives of the workshop’s final session were to identify the key
issues in the governance of global health partnerships and apply
what has been learned to decision making in the establishment of
new partnerships. To achieve those objectives, session moderator Cate
O’Kane guided the workshop participants through a role-playing exercise
to apply lessons learned from the workshop and identify key messages.
In this role-playing exercise, participants in groups of six took on iden-
tities reflecting six key organizations working together to form a new
partnership and were guided through a process of collectively develop-
ing a governance structure for the partnership. At the end of the exercise,
participants shared some reflections.
Brenda Colatrella said her group was able to reach a consensus to put
the responsibility for leading the partnership in the hands of the partner
they felt was best positioned to do it. Kenneth Miller said his group had
more hard than easy decisions, in part because the focus of the partner-
ship in the exercise was outside the group members’ areas of expertise. A
workshop participant said that managing opposing views from outside
the partnership was challenging. Another participant noted that there
was some conflict over how quickly the partnership needed to make its
decisions about governance, with some members being more impatient
than others. A second participant in the same group said there was some
question about why the NGO representative was feeling so urgent and
whether it had to do with a near-term financial need. O’Kane said that
seemed like a trust issue.
57

Continuing the discussion, two workshop participants felt there was a

need to bring in additional parties to move the partnership’s work along
more quickly. In one group, the corporate partner took the stance of not
wanting competitors to be part of the initiative, with her reasoning being
that her company could provide the value that was needed from the pri-
vate sector. A satisfactory compromise was to create an external advisory
committee that could include competitors.
CLOSING REMARKS
Clarion Johnson and Regina Rabinovich began the closing workshop
discussion by sharing their key takeaways from the workshop. Johnson
said he had developed a newfound appreciation for restraint with regard
to when to use various governance mechanisms. Rabinovich was taken
by the need to spend time getting the governance structure right from the
start. She wondered if those within the global health community could
lay out the questions that a governance structure needs to answer as a
guide for groups starting new partnerships. Her second takeaway was
that the structure matters, and it is important to understand the rami-
fications of choosing a specific structure. Her third key lesson was that
conflicts of interest are common in all sectors, not just the private sector,
and that there are effective approaches for managing conflicts. She won-
dered if the Forum on Public–Private Partnerships for Global Health and
Safety could better characterize and understand the many approaches
available for resolving conflicts of interest in public–private partnerships.
Rabinovich was also struck by the idea of the ethical dimension of gover-
nance and expressed interest in exploring that idea further.
Jo Ivey Boufford was surprised by the power of the preexisting stereo
types each sector has of one another and by the ubiquity of conflict of
interest outside of the private sector. She also observed that language
chosen to describe governance may present a challenge to the public
health community, a comment that Robert Bollinger seconded. She
noted that the language used in the public administration literature is
much clearer than the literature coming out of public health or business.
Bollinger provided the final comment, which was that it troubled him
how difficult it remains to put together these partnerships and how easy
it is to exclude key players and miss opportunities for progress.

Appendix A
Commissioned Paper:
The Core Roles of Transparency and
Accountability in the Governance
of Global Health PPPs
By Michael R. Reich
(Email: [email protected])
Prepared for the Forum on Public–Private Partnerships

for Global Health and Safety
Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health: A Workshop
October 26, 2017
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Washington, DC
O
ver the past two decades, the field of public–private partnerships
(PPPs) in health has expanded enormously, both in the number
of such organizations and in the study of this phenomenon. This
growth reflects rising societal expectations about what partnerships can
and should do to contribute to social welfare. The National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Forum on Public–Private Partner-
ships for Global Health and Safety (PPP Forum) reflects this growth in
interest in PPPs and has contributed to better understanding what these
organizations do and how they contribute to society. Within this sphere,
the question of “governance” of PPPs remains an important topic for
additional analysis and discussion.
This paper was prepared as background for the National Academies
workshop to examine “the evolution and trends in the governance of
global health PPPs,” and provide “reflections on significant issues and
current challenges with these governance structures, processes, and prac-
tices.”1 The PPP Forum staff suggested that I draw on my own work
in considering the trends and challenges for PPP governance. Over the
past two decades, I have had multiple engagements with PPPs in public
59

health. I have studied various partnerships2–5 and helped establish and

oversee (as a board member) a new PPP. In April 2000, I organized a con-
ference in Boston to examine PPPs and subsequently published a book
based on that meeting with several case studies and analytical chapters.6
Many of the issues raised in 2000 persist today. In some ways it is com-
forting that the book could identify core challenges for global health PPPs
17 years ago. In other ways it is discouraging that certain major problems
persist, especially related to governance, perhaps reflecting fundamental
challenges in getting public and private organizations to work together
effectively.
Diverse engagements with PPPs in global health over many years
have highlighted for me the importance of transparency and account-
ability in partnership governance. In this paper, I first briefly review the
literature on PPP governance. I then propose a simplified model of gov-
ernance, with a focus on transparency and accountability, and discuss the
implications of this model for assessing the governance of PPPs in global
health and for designing the governance of a new PPP.
THE LITERATURE ON PPP GOVERNANCE

The first question is: “What do we mean by governance?” The National
Academies invitation to the workshop gave a brief answer, defining gov-
ernance as “the art of steering societies and organizations.” The source
of this definition is the Institute on Governance, a not-for-profit public
interest institution based in Canada (an interesting choice for the U.S.-
based National Academies).7 This definition is useful in its emphasis on
governance as an “art” form—something that involves both creativity and
execution—and its goal of seeking to “steer” both societies and organiza-
tions, which implies knowing the course that the organization is expected
to follow. The term governance is a relatively recent word, as shown by a
Google graph of usage that demonstrates an impressive surge in the past
two decades (see Figure A-1).
But as the workshop invitation also noted, definitions of governance
are “varied”—an understatement. Even the Institute on Governance rec-
ognizes the limitations of the steering metaphor7:
Some observers criticize this definition as being too simple. Steering sug-
gests that governance is a straightforward process, akin to a steersman in
a boat. These critics assert that governance is neither simple nor neat—by
nature it may be messy, tentative, unpredictable, and fluid. Governance
is complicated by the fact that it involves multiple actors, not a single
helmsman.

61
FIGURE A-1 Graph of usage of “governance” in Google Books, 1940–2008.

The ambiguity in definition and understanding of governance is

heightened when applied to PPPs, precisely because these organizations
are partnerships and do not fit neatly into the accepted categories of
“public” or “private” organizations, businesses, or agencies. In addition,
partnerships often involve multiple partners with no single “owner” or
governor. The nature of partnerships creates both strengths and weak-
nesses for PPPs. As I wrote previously, “both public and private actors
are being driven towards each other, with some amount of uneasiness,
in order to accomplish common or overlapping objectives” in situations
where “neither public nor private organizations are capable of resolving
such problems on their own.”8
These endeavors thus bring together organizations with strikingly
different cultures—“different values, interests, and worldviews”—to a
space where “the rules of the game for public–private partnerships are
fluid and ambiguous.”8 These cross-sector collaborations between public
entities and private entities are complicated and time consuming because
societies lack adequate standards or norms about how these new orga-
nizations should work (compared to collaborations between only private
or only public entities). As a result, each PPP typically needs to invent de
novo how it will operate and be governed.
In planning for this meeting, the National Academies staff conducted
an initial literature review of PPP governance. The annotated bibliogra-
phy on “partnership governance in global health”9 listed 27 documents
published since 2000, including peer-reviewed articles, conference reports,
consultancy reports, and books, with analyses of single organizations and
comparisons of multiple partnerships. Many of the documents adopt a
tone commonly found in the business management literature (sold in air-
ports) on how to make your partnership work better. One report10 provides
“five characteristics of successful PPPs.”a Another publication—based on a
review of the “governance structures” of 100 global health partnerships—
identifies the “seven habits of highly effective global public–private health
partnerships,”11 specifying seven contributions and seven unhealthy habits,
followed by seven actions to improve their habits.b Another article con-
cludes that the governance structure of a partnership is a key determinant
of success, according to an analysis of the voting rights of different parties
in organizational boards.12
My initial impression of the literature on PPP governance, based on this
review, was of a field characterized by a plethora of recommendations and
an ambiguity of actions. The number of publications about PPP governance
has undoubtedly grown, but it was difficult for me to identify any evolution
or trends in the literature. I was impressed by the increased volume, but
did not see increased clarity. One review of the “governance of new global
partnerships” identified a series of interesting challenges, weaknesses, and

APPENDIX A 63
lessons from 11 partnership assessments, but did not specify a model for
PPP governance and focused exclusively on the role of boards.13 (One con-
clusion of this study was that many PPP boards were designed to allow
the participation of multiple constituencies, which reduced the ability to
function as accountability mechanisms; to assure representation of many
stakeholders, board meetings included 40 to 50 people, making it difficult to
have in-depth discussions and resolve complex problems.) These reflections
on PPP governance led me to think about an alternative approach focused
on the concepts of transparency and accountability.
Following this initial review, the National Academies research center
conducted a more detailed literature scan on partnership governance of
three databases (OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science) for materials pub-
lished since 2000.14 The search included the terms partnerships and global
health and transparency, accountability, and governance in various combi-
nations. The search also examined the publications of 14 global health
organizations. The search produced a total of 519 titles and abstracts. A
review of these 519 summaries found 42 that were directly relevant, 268
that were of some relevance, and 209 that were not appropriate. (The full
search document of 166 pages is available from the author.)c
It is worth noting that the broader literature on “governance of health
systems” has also grown significantly in recent years. A systematic review
of “frameworks to assess health systems governance” between 1994 and
2016 found 16 different frameworks in the literature.15 The frameworks
were based on various theoretical approaches in new institutional eco-
nomics, political science, public management, and development. But this
review also found that only 5 of the 16 frameworks have been applied.
The authors concluded that the existing frameworks need to be tested
and validated in order to understand “which frameworks work well in
which settings.” They also emphasized that “health system governance
is complex and difficult to assess” and that “[t]here is no single, agreed
framework that can serve all purposes.”15
Based on this situation, it seemed to me that it would be more use-
ful to focus on a higher-level model for PPP governance in hopes that it
could be applied. I have adopted that approach in this paper. My goal
was to create a model of governance that could simplify the complex chal-
lenges of PPP governance, and that could be applied by implementers and
analysts involved in the design, assessment, and revision of how actual
partnerships work in practice.
A SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF PPP GOVERNANCE

My approach envisions PPP governance as consisting of two key
dimensions: transparency and accountability. These dimensions are oper-

ationalized through various measures and mechanisms, which I discuss

below. I begin with a focus on clarifying these two dimensions, which are
among the most widely discussed concepts in writing about governance.
As Jonathan Fox notes, “a wide range of actors agree that transparency
and accountability are key to all manner of ‘good governance.’”16 These
two concepts also appeared as common themes in the NASEM literature
scan on PPP governance.9,14
Many analyses of organizational governance consider transparency
and accountability as part of the same category.16,17 For example, the
authors of an analysis of the Medicines Transparency Alliance wrote,
“Transparency is a necessary but not sufficient condition of account-
ability.”18 In this paper, I take a different approach. Instead of seeing one
concept as a condition of the other, one inside the other, or one leading to
the other, I consider transparency and accountability as orthogonal (and
independent) dimensions of organizational governance (see Figure A-2).
This approach takes one step beyond what Fox does when he considers
transparency and accountability as parallel concepts and examines their
overlaps and “uncertain relationship.”16
FIGURE A-2 Two-dimensional model of governance with transparency and

accountability.

APPENDIX A 65
TABLE A-1 Two-by-Two Table of Low and High Levels of

Transparency and Accountability
Low Accountability High Accountability
High Transparency High T, Low A High T, High A
Low Transparency Low T, Low A Low T, High A
By viewing transparency and accountability as separate orthogonal

dimensions of governance, one can then think about organizations with
high and low transparency and high and low accountability, leading to a
two-by-two table of governance (see Table A-1).
Let me underline two caveats about this simplified model. First, I
am not asserting that these two dimensions represent all possible aspects of
governance for PPPs. The proposal is not intended as a grand theory of
governance; instead, it is a “simplified” model. I argue that transparency
and accountability are two core components of governance, and that
these two dimensions can be used for planning new partnerships and for
assessing and improving the operations of existing partnerships. Other
dimensions no doubt could be included—for example, participation (or
civil society engagement) is sometimes proposed as a separate aspect of
governance.19 I prefer, instead, to see participation as a mechanism for
expanding transparency and/or assuring accountability.d For the pur-
poses of thinking about PPP governance, however, I suggest that these
two dimensions provide improved conceptual clarity and operational
implications. In addition, and most importantly, improved transparency
and improved accountability may lead to improved performance by the
partnership in achieving its organizational and societal goals. We should
care about these two dimensions of governance because they can influ-
ence the partnership’s impacts on society, as I discuss below.
My second caveat is that this simplified model does not tell us how much
transparency or accountability is good or desirable. This normative question
about the level of governance (along these two dimensions) has to be
provided through other social processes. Partners and stakeholders may
disagree about how much transparency they want for a particular part-
nership, and they may also disagree about how much accountability, and
to whom, is desirable. Our ethical intuition would probably tell us that
the lower-left quadrant, with low transparency and low accountability,
is not desirable for a PPP, since this would probably contribute to lower
social benefits from the partnership. Our intuition would probably point
to somewhere in the upper-right quadrant as desirable, although how
far along each axis (and for which stakeholders) would be debatable

and contested. Indeed, it is this intuition, I would suggest, that brought

both practitioners and researchers to the National Academies workshop
on PPP governance. Understanding how to move an organization along
these dimensions of governance, then, is critical.
This simplified model of a two-by-two table does not, by any means,
solve the complex problems of governance of PPPs (or any other orga-
nizations) or address the many factors that contribute to the success or
failure of a partnership. The format does, however, allow one to think
systematically about the definitions (and purposes) of transparency and
accountability, the ways to measure high and low levels for both concepts,
different institutional mechanisms that can change the levels of trans-
parency or accountability, and, eventually, how these two dimensions
influence the performance of a partnership. In short, this simplified model
is intended to create conceptual clarity about the purposes of PPP gover-
nance and also lead to concrete options for action to promote ethical and
effective governance of PPPs in global health. Let us, therefore, consider
these two dimensions of governance in more detail.
TRANSPARENCY
Transparency fundamentally involves questions of contents and rela-
tionships: What information is available to whom? In addition, transpar-
ency involves questions about the quality of the information and the
mechanisms for making the information available.
Let’s start with the relationship aspect of transparency. This addresses
the question of who has access to information from the partnership. The
receivers of information can include the core founding partners, non-
founding and noncore partners, stakeholders who are not partners (such
as beneficiaries), government agencies (including contracting agencies
and regulatory agencies), relevant actors in the public health field, donor
agencies, academics, and the general public. Depending on national law,
partnerships can be required to make certain information available to
specific government agencies and to the general public. For example, in
the United States, partnerships that register as nonprofit and tax-exempt
charitable organizations (as a 501(c)(3) organization) are required to file a
financial report (Form 990) with the Internal Revenue Service each year,
thereby providing information to the U.S. government. In addition, these
organizations are required to make the annual Form 990 available for
inspection to the general public during business hours (and many place
the forms on their website for free download). National law and govern-
ment policy (including memoranda of understanding with a PPP) can
thus specify which information is to be made available to whom.
Most informational relationships are decided at the discretion of the

APPENDIX A 67
partnership (or at the direction of a partner in a written agreement to ini-

tiate the collaboration).e For instance, detailed information about salaries
of executives and managers at a partnership may be available to the core
partners on the board of directors but may not be available to the broader
public or the beneficiaries of a PPP. Similarly, contracts with suppliers may
be reviewed by the core partners but not by noncore partners. Indeed, the
funders of partnerships can exert high degrees of influence over what is
made transparent to whom, sometimes restricting access to information
and sometimes expanding it. This pattern illustrates that not all partners
are equal.
Next, let’s consider kinds of information. One way to think about
kinds of information for a PPP is around inputs, processes, outputs, and
outcomes. This typology is proposed by Reynaers and Grimmelikhuijsen
(2015) in their article on transparency in PPPs,20 although I have slightly
altered the definitions to fit with standard terms used in evaluation and
management literature. Inputs could include the contributions from each
partner, such as finances and sources of funding, materials purchased and
received by the organization, and people who work at the PPP (human
resources), as well as any intellectual property and information used by
the partnership. Processes could include ways of making decisions (includ-
ing plans and budgets) and related documentation such as agreements
signed by the partnership, policy memos and analyses, minutes from
internal meetings, expenditures by the PPP (financial reporting), and
operational and strategic decisions for the PPP. Outputs could include
who receives products managed by the PPP, and data sets that measure
performance of the organization (in terms of relevant metrics or targets,
or related to the partnership’s mission), such as numbers of beneficiaries,
services delivered, or medications received, as well as lessons learned that
others can apply. Outcomes would specify the ultimate performance objec-
tives in terms of improved health status, client satisfaction, or financial
risk protection.21 In their analysis of four partnerships in the Netherlands,
Reynaers and Grimmelikhuijsen found that there was limited attention
given to inputs and processes, and that most of the attention focused on
outputs, but that the output targets were not always clearly specified and
thereby created problems.20
The quality and scope of information is also often decided by the
partnership. For instance, monitoring information on outputs produced
by the PPP is often published in an annual report and made available to
the general public. But these documents rarely contain any negative infor-
mation and usually do not compare performance to targets or expecta-
tions. The full data set is not usually publicly available, or the data may be
aggregated in ways that mask key results that could be viewed negatively,
such as distributional issues (across regions or across income groups).

Another possibility is that raw data are provided, but in ways that are
either not easily understood by people who are not technical analysts or
not able to be readily analyzed. The presentation of data thus can shape
whether the information is intelligible to different audiences.
The final consideration is mechanisms for assuring transparency. Four
general types of mechanisms to promote access to information (and trans-
parency) exist18: (1) access through public dissemination, where informa-
tion is provided by the organization in publications or on websites, or
made available in public reading rooms; (2) access by request, either as
required by law (or lawsuit) or by discretionary decision of the organiza-
tion; (3) access through meetings, including public hearings or advisory
meetings or closed meetings; and (4) access through informal means, such
as whistleblowers or leaks when confidential documents are provided
to individuals, government agencies, other groups, or the press, gener-
ally in order to focus attention on mismanagement, corruption, or other
purposes.
Other mechanisms for access to information also exist. For example,
the funders of an organization (or the founding partners of a PPP) can
require the reporting of certain information to the funders and the found-
ers and of other information to the public as a condition of receiving
financial support. Members of the board of directors may have exceptional
access to internal information through regular meetings; these members
can include the core partners, noncore partners, and others, depending on
how broadly board representation is decided by the partnership. Finally,
peer-reviewed publications and evaluations can result in public access to
information, including full and original data sets for analysis.
It is worth noting several reasons why we care about transparency
for PPPs. First, transparency contributes to learning. Transparency allows
others the opportunity to avoid making the same mistakes and advances
knowledge about how to improve the role of PPPs in global health. Through
access to information about inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes,
others can learn about what works, how efficient different approaches
are, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different strategies and
structures, and many other aspects of partnership performance. Access to
information is a necessary but not sufficient condition for learning.
Second, transparency contributes to democracy. Because PPPs are
intended to fulfill public interests, one can argue that the public has a
right to know (in a democratic society) about what these organizations are
doing and how they are operating. Laws on the right to know, however,
usually apply to government agencies and public records. When PPPs
take on public-sector functions, the contracts can include confidentiality
clauses that limit access to information within the partnership organiza-

APPENDIX A 69
tion.22 These restrictions can limit public information and public delibera-
tion about the specific PPP and its activities.
Third, access to information can contribute to accountability, as dis-
cussed below in more detail. But transparency (and access to information)
does not necessarily result in action to hold a partnership accountable. An
organization can provide partial or altered information to shape percep-
tions of what it is doing, or it can provide an overwhelming amount of
information in ways that obstruct accountability. In addition, action does
not always follow access to information.
Fourth, transparency can shape organizational performance. If a
partnership is required to report on certain metrics (such as number of
patients treated), then the PPP could tend to seek to produce to that met-
ric. There may be financial incentives and reputational benefits to report
(and to act) in ways that show positive trends in information disclosed.
Finally, transparency can contribute to public perceptions of a part-
nership. Decisions about transparency shape the positive and negative
information and images that exist in the public sphere about a partner-
ship. PPPs may decide not to disclose information that could be viewed
as harmful or negative, as part of their public relations strategies, or they
may use positive information to boost the partnership’s public image and
reputation. In addition, PPPs may use their transparency policies to high-
light the organization’s adherence to ethical standards for partnerships.
In conclusion, PPPs shape the transparency they provide by deciding
how to use different access-to-information mechanisms to channel certain
kinds and quality of information to different audiences. Partnerships tend
to have large latitude in deciding what information is provided to whom,
the quality of that information, and how it is provided, depending on
the nation where the partnership is registered and the legal requirements
for such organizations in that country (which sets the minimal rules for
transparency). The legal requirements will also vary, however, depend-
ing on whether the PPP is registered as a formal organization, the kind of
organization, and the national laws related to that organizational form.f
It should also be noted, however, that transparency for a PPP has costs
(in terms of preparing and releasing information to different actors and
audience) and also can have risks (since releasing information can result
in consequences that may negatively affect the partnership). The com-
plexity of transparency in practice (as described above) also complicates
the challenges of measuring the degree of transparency for a particular
organization. It may therefore be more appropriate to think about trans-
parency with regard to a particular actor, rather than trying to create an
aggregate measure across diverse audiences.

ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability, as with transparency, is a contested concept with mul-
tiple definitions. I find the definition provided by Edward Rubin to be
useful, as it captures many common elements of the concept23:
[t]he ability of one actor to demand an explanation or justification of

another actor for its actions and to punish the second actor on the basis
of its performance or of its explanation.
These two elements are often called “answerability” and “sanctions.”

Accountability (in democratic societies) is typically considered for
elected officials (both legislators and the chief executive), and that form
of accountability is exercised (in the traditional view) through elections.
Many problems exist with the notion of elections as a mechanism for
assuring accountability;23 and these problems are well known. As Rubin
wrote in 2005, elections as accountability depends on the idea that
an elected official must answer to his constituents for his actions. A real-
istic, contemporary consideration of elections suggests that this relation-
ship to accountability, although not entirely absent, is a relatively minor
aspect of the electoral process.
(One need only glance at the current state of public affairs in Washington,
DC, to understand the limitations of elections as accountability mechanisms.)
Rubin also argues that accountability can only be exercised in a hier-
archical relationship between superior and subordinate (which I do not
agree with, especially for partnerships), and according to concrete stan-
dards (which I do agree with).23 Rubin concludes by saying that his goal
is not to solve the problem of administrative accountability but “simply to
indicate that holding someone accountable is a complex, technical task.” 23
This process of “holding accountable” is further complicated in PPPs by
the challenges of trying to hold a partner accountable—a problem that
may not have been anticipated when the partnership began. In addition,
holding someone or a partner accountable is more than a technical task,
since it involves questions of values (e.g., which targets are selected for
assessing performance) and power (e.g., how actors are pressured to com-
ply). In short, accountability involves ethics and politics as well as tech-
nical challenges. For example, accountability may be exercised through
specific sanctions for nonperformance related to an agreed-upon metric,
but it may also occur through public criticism and conflict that damage
a PPP’s reputation and thereby negatively affect the partnership’s ability
to operate.
What does this mean for PPPs in global health? Let’s consider

APPENDIX A 71
accountability for PPPs, first according to relationships and then accord-

ing to metrics.
As with transparency, accountability needs to be addressed through
bilateral relationships: Who is holding the PPP accountable? PPPs have a
variety of stakeholders who could seek to hold the organization and its
officers accountable. Perhaps most directly involved are the founding or
core partners, which typically provide funding to initiate the PPP and
have agreements and contractual obligations to uphold. These core part-
ners are often represented on the partnership’s board of directors or its
executive committee, where key strategic decisions are made and super-
vised. Other nonfounding partners (who may or may not be on the board)
also have strong interest in asserting accountability for a PPP, including
the intended beneficiaries, related civil society organizations, and relevant
governmental or international agencies. National regulatory bodies in the
countries where the PPP operates also have a relationship with the PPP
that can be expressed through accountability. National legislative and
executive authorities may have an accountability relationship with a PPP,
depending on the field of action for the PPP and the national political con-
text. Whether a PPP is registered as an independent entity (and the kind
of organization) in a particular political jurisdiction will have important
implications (including legal obligations) for who holds the partnership
accountable (and for what and how), as noted above for transparency.
Ambiguous roles and responsibilities in a partnership complicate the
process of holding a PPP accountable. Kamya et al. contrast the partner-
ship model of relationships with the contractual model. They state that24
[u]nlike contractual relationships where roles and responsibilities are

demarcated and enforceable and where goals are often set by one party
and communicated vertically to another, partnerships are defined by
flexible and dynamic allocation of roles and responsibilities and mutual
decision making and goal setting.
In their paper, Kamya et al. evaluate the Gavi partnership for human pap-
illomavirus (HPV) applications in Uganda and find that the lack of clear
guidelines about roles, responsibilities, and terms of references probably
reduced efficiency in operations. They conclude, “[t]he existence of many
capable partners does not ensure clear expectations and management of
activities and processes.”24 In short, in this case, it was not clear who was
accountable to whom, and this ambiguity created confusion.
The next question is: Accountable for what? Here it is useful to refer
back to the four categories of information discussed above for transpar-
ency: inputs (resources that go into a program or organization), processes
(activities undertaken by the program or organization, including how

decisions and plans are made), outputs (what is produced by the activities),
and outcomes (the ultimate performance goals or benefits produced by the
program or organization). These categories relate to the concepts typically
used in logic models for evaluation.25 As part of assuring accountability,
a partnership could have specific metrics or procedures specified as per-
formance targets for these four categories. Different stakeholders could
have different interests and capacities for different kinds of targets, and
they may seek to hold the partnership accountable for different kinds of
performance metrics. Outsiders, for example, may be keenly concerned
with processes used in partnerships, since it can allow them to participate
and have voice in decision making, and thereby influence decisions and
performance on results. Insiders may focus on staff performance metrics
for deciding on both sanctions and incentives, and thereby influence part-
nership production of both outputs and outcomes. Insiders, for example,
could use “management by objectives” and “key performance indicators”
to hold executives or groups or projects responsible for specific targets,
with sanctions and rewards depending on performance.
Holding a partnership accountable for final outcomes (such as
changes in health status, client satisfaction, or financial risk protection)21
often involves complex questions of assessing causation. To what extent
can partnership actions be causally associated with a specific outcome,
and how can you know?26 A rigorous study to evaluate how a partner-
ship’s actions affect outcomes often entails high costs and can still have
high uncertainty, due to multiple factors that affect outcomes (beyond
the specific intervention) and that are not under the partnership’s con-
trol. An evaluation of 120 pharmaceutical industry-led access-to-medicine
initiatives (all listed on the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers & Associations [IFPMA] Health Partnerships Directory)
found, despite frequent claims of positive impacts, only 47 evaluation
studies, and all except three were of low or very low quality.26 Uncertainty
in causal attribution requires careful study design and interpretation of
analytical results. Whether to hold a partnership accountable for specific
outcomes, and if so, which ones, therefore, represent complex questions.
The third aspect for accountability is: How? What mechanisms can be
used to implement PPP accountability for different stakeholders? Many
accountability mechanisms exist that can be (and are) applied to partner-
ships. Boards of directors (representing different perspectives) review
performance assessments of partnership executives and decide on both
incentives (such as financial bonuses) and sanctions (such as firing and
demotions). Core partners may decide to increase their financial commit-
ments to a PPP, reduce their funding, or even exit a partnership, based
on changes in key performance indicators. National regulatory authorities
may require partnerships to submit annual financial reports to allow the

APPENDIX A 73
PPP to continue operations within a country. Civil society organizations

may use both procedural and substantive measures to assess PPP perfor-
mance and then using various strategies (public information campaigns,
lobbying politicians, public interest lawsuits) compel the partnership
to change its activities or reward the PPP. Open meetings or hearings,
attended by key stakeholders, may provide a mechanism for assessing
procedural or substantive metrics and for allowing public review and
criticism, thereby advancing accountability through impacts on public
reputation for the PPP. But such public meetings can also be designed to
avoid serious questions and consequences, thereby avoiding accountabil-
ity. In some cases, a partnership may sign contracts with key stakeholders
(core partners or beneficiaries) as a way of setting specific performance
metrics and specifying consequences if those metrics are not achieved
within certain time periods. The judiciary can also serve as an important
force for holding partnerships accountable when other mechanisms are
not effective.
In conclusion, holding a PPP and partners accountable seeks to assure
that a partnership is achieving its public interest objectives, and if not,
helps to identify what can be done to improve that performance.g Analy-
sis of accountability therefore must be connected to practical action.
IMPLICATIONS FOR ANALYSIS AND ACTION

The above discussions of transparency and accountability, while
seemingly abstract and theoretical, have practical implications for both
analysis and action. To illustrate some of these implications, I have com-
bined the concepts of transparency and accountability into a “governance
matrix for PPPs” (see Table A-2). This descriptive tool allows one to
analyze the characteristics and levels of transparency and accountability
for a particular organization, and it can also be used as a planning tool
to design transparency and accountability relationships for a new PPP.
Table A-2 applies the governance matrix to a hypothetical partnership, to
illustrate how the matrix can be used to describe and assess transparency
and accountability for a specific PPP. (Note: this hypothetical example is
not intended to be either an ideal or a typical partnership, but rather to
illustrate how the matrix might be used.)
One important caveat needs to be noted before we explore this matrix.
Our intuition tells us that improved governance should lead to improved
performance by helping partnerships learn, by correcting nonproductive
practices, and by removing or punishing individuals or partners that
do not contribute to social goals and PPP objectives. But few systematic
studies have been conducted to assess the connections between either
transparency or accountability and the performance of partnerships, mak-

TABLE A-2 Governance Matrix for PPPs: Assessing Transparency

and Accountability for a Hypothetical PPP
Relationship: Level
Party B Contents Mechanisms (High/Low)
Information Information How
to? on? informed?
Transparency: General public Limited number Annual report Low
Party A (PPP) of outputs available on
PPP webpage
Beneficiaries Information on Written report Low
a few outputs and public
meeting
Board of Detailed reports Board meetings, High
directors on key inputs, financial and
processes, operating
outputs reports
Accountable Accountable How
to? for? accountable?
Accountability: General public Limited number PPP webpage, Low
Party A (PPP) of metrics public hearings
Beneficiaries A few metrics Ombudsman Low
on outputs and complaints,
using public
pressure and
reputation
Core partners Detailed metrics Annual reviews High
on inputs, of key staff,
processes, with firing or
outputs bonus, and of
key partners
NOTES: Contents for Transparency includes inputs, processes, and outputs; Contents for
Accountability includes inputs, processes, and outputs; for Mechanisms for Transparency
and Accountability, see discussion above.
ing it difficult to draw firm causal conclusions. According to one system-

atic review, case studies for some partnerships suggest various kinds of
positive impacts, “at least in certain settings.”27 We need to know more,
however, if recommendations are to be based on expected consequences.
First, for transparency, the analyst selects a relationship between the
PPP and some party B (such as the general public, beneficiaries, or board
of directors). The contents of transparency are then described according
to the kind and quality of information made available in the transpar-
ency relationships (key outputs, a few outputs, or detailed information

APPENDIX A 75
on inputs, processes, and outputs), and the mechanisms for making this
information available are then entered (annual reports on a website, s imple
written reports physically distributed, or distribution of detailed opera-
tional and financial reports at a closed board meeting). These descriptions
then allow a judgment about the level of transparency provided for each
relationship (high or low).
The analyst then conducts a similar assessment for accountability.
The analyst selects a relationship between the PPP and some party B
(such as the general public, beneficiaries, or core partners). The con-
tents of accountability are then described according to (1) the kind of
standards used in the accountability relationships (few or many proce-
dural or substantive standards) and (2) the mechanisms for assuring that
the performance standards are met by the organization (accountability
through public information on a webpage, accountability through reports
provided to beneficiaries, or accountability through performance reviews
of key PPP staff, followed by sanctions or rewards depending on per-
formance). These descriptions then allow a judgment about the level of
accountability provided for each relationship (high or low).
This governance matrix leaves many questions unanswered. The
metrics by which each dimension is measured need to be defined. There
are operational questions about how to collect the information for the
matrix, on both transparency and accountability, and judgment ques-
tions about how to assess levels as high or low. Some of these questions
can be addressed through repeated practice and use of the tool by actual
partnerships. Also, the levels of transparency and accountability may
change over time as the partnership evolves. This reflects the need to
monitor the implementation process and to assess gaps between expected
performance in transparency and accountability and actual performance.
Finally, the matrix may be applicable to other kinds of PPPs (those outside
of global health) and to other organizations (beyond partnerships, such as
public agencies, academic institutions, and private entities).
This approach to transparency and accountability can also be used
for normative evaluation (that is, setting specific performance targets),
but that raises process implications. What is the desirable level of trans-
parency and accountability for a PPP, and for which audiences, within
a particular country? Who should set those levels, and how? In short,
who sets the normative rules for PPPs? We could, for example, consider
a set of “minimal” standards of governance of PPPs, or even provide a
scale of standards from bronze- to silver- to gold-level governance (as
one reviewer suggested). This question returns us to broader normative
issues about the governance of PPPs, to assure that these organizations
are meeting the social goals and public interests that they are intended
to pursue.

Four broad options emerge to address these normative questions: by

nation, by industry, by international organization, or by nongovernmental
organizations.
One possible approach is to assign this responsibility to each nation.
National regulatory agencies and national law could address (as cur-
rently happens for charitable organizations, for example) the gover-
nance requirements of PPPs, specifying the levels and mechanisms of
transparency and accountability required. These laws could include tax
reporting requirements and activity reporting requirements, to assure
that a partnership continues its status as a charitable organization. This
approach, however, could introduce legalistic restrictions to partnerships,
and thereby diminish their flexibility and innovative capacity to address
problems not easily handled by governments (one of the proposed key
advantages of PPPs).
A second approach would be for each industry to develop its own
standards (through an approach of self-regulation) for transparency and
accountability of PPPs. IFPMA, for example, has a website with a direc-
tory of more than 250 “health partnerships.”28 IFPMA could set industry
metrics and expectations for these partnerships, and ask each organiza-
tion to complete its own governance matrix. The metrics then might be
different for different industries, for instance, for pharmaceutical compa-
nies, food companies, petroleum companies, and others. This approach
raises problems of the limited effectiveness of self-regulation.
A third approach would be for an international or multilateral agency
to propose good practice standards for governance of PPPs. This would
cut across different types of PPPs and could be integrated into the Sustain-
able Development Goals. It could include the development of a symbol
of “good partnership practices,” provided by an independent organiza-
tion, such as the symbol for environmentally caught seafood29 or the
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval30 or an ISO 9000.31 These globally
accepted standards of good partnership practice could then provide the
basis for audits, which would assure that the mechanisms of transparency
and accountability function as intended.
A fourth approach would be for PPPs to develop their own code of
good partnership practices. This code could include specific metrics and
processes for both transparency and accountability and could define spe-
cific audiences as important relationships for partnerships. An association
of PPPs could then define membership based on compliance with the
code and on audits to demonstrate acceptable performance by a specific
organization.

APPENDIX A 77
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this proposal for a simplified model offers a number
of suggestions about how to think about the governance of PPPs, with a
focus on transparency and accountability. I present the proposal in the
spirit of seeking to move the discussion forward, clarify some of the key
concepts, and indicate ways to apply the ideas in practice. I hope that the
proposal will help improve thinking and action about the governance of
PPPs in global health.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is based on the keynote address prepared for the Forum
on Public–Private Partnerships for Global Health and Safety: E xploring
Partnership Governance in Global Health—A Workshop, October 26,
2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
Washington, DC.
The paper benefited from several discussions with Peter Rockers and
Veronika Wirtz, and from comments on earlier drafts by Michael Goroff,
Anya L. Guyer, Cate O’Kane, and Rachel Taylor, from participants at a
seminar at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and from com-
ments received from participants at the National Academies workshop.
NOTES
a. The “five characteristics of high-performing PPPs,” according to the report, are
(1) adopt overall strategy and role, (2) leverage the power of the private sector,
(3) nurture partnerships with government, (4) invest in knowledge, and (5) plan for
sustainability. For further information on what these characteristics mean and how
they were derived from the analysis of a single case study, see ref. 10.
b. This article on global health partnerships identifies seven “unhealthy habits,” although
the authors do not explain the methods they used to reach these conclusions. They
state: “We argue that GHPs [Global Health Partnerships] skew national priorities of
recipient countries by imposing those of donor partners; deprive specific stakeholders
a voice in decision-making; demonstrate inadequate use of critical governance proce-
dures; fail to compare the costs and benefits of public versus private approaches; fail
to be sufficiently resourced to implement activities and pay for alliance costs; waste
resources through inadequate use of country systems and poor harmonisation; and
do not adequately manage human resources for partnering approaches.” See ref. 11
for additional details.
c. While I did not conduct a systematic analysis of the titles retrieved, the literature scan
was very helpful in identifying some key publications related to PPP governance, and
I have used them in writing this paper and included them as references.
d. I decided not to include “participation” as a separate dimension of PPP governance
because it seemed to me to be a key component of both transparency and account-
ability (through the relational nature of both concepts), because it seemed to be a
mechanism to achieve transparency and accountability more than a separate dimen-

sion of governance, and because a three-dimensional matrix is too hard to visualize,

keep in mind, and use in practice.
e. Private health care organizations (such as hospitals) that engage in mergers and
acquisitions, on the other hand, can be required by state law in the United States to
submit detailed financial reports to state agencies (for example, on price and quality)
in order to evaluate likely impacts on consumers. They can also be required to pro-
vide annual financial statements (on revenues, profit/losses, and debt) on a regular
basis. In some cases, however, private hospital chains have refused to provide these
detailed reports and as a result have been subjected to fines for noncompliance and
threats of noncertification. See: Priyanka Dayal McCluskey, “Steward Health Care
Fails to Submit Financial Data as it Expands,” Boston Globe, 2 September 2017, p. 8.
f. The decision of whether to register a partnership as an independent entity (or locate
within an existing entity) has important implications for both governance and opera-
tions. For example, if a PPP seeks to receive tax-deductible donations in kind or in cash
in the United States, it frequently registers as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is
exempt from federal taxes under the U.S. tax code (one of 29 types of tax exempt orga-
nizations under 501(c)). This 501(c)(3) status as a private charity or public foundation
also results in certain reporting requirements and limitations on political activities, with
fines for noncompliance, and thereby shapes both transparency and accountability.
g. It is worth noting that some PPPs (for instance, for service delivery within national
health systems) have been criticized for conflicts of interest and not serving public
health goals or public welfare. See: Sujatha Rao, “A Strange Hybrid,” The Indian
Express, 11 August 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/niti-
aayog-a-strange-hybrid-public-hospitals-government-4791233.
REFERENCES
1. Taylor, Rachel. “Invitation to Speak at National Academies Workshop on Global Health
PPP Governance,” Email to author, 12 July 2017.
2. Reich, Michael R., ed., Assessment of TDR’s Contributions to Product Development for
Tropical Diseases: Three Cases. Geneva: UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme
for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, 1997.
3. Reich, Michael R., ed., An Assessment of U.S. Pharmaceutical Donations: Players, Pro-
cesses, and Products. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, 1999.
4. Frost, Laura, Michael R. Reich, and Tomoko Fujisaki. “A Partnership for Ivermectin:
Social Worlds and Boundary Objects,” in Michael R. Reich, ed., Public-Private Partner-
ships for Public Health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002, pp. 87-113.
5. Ramiah, Ilavenil, and Michael R. Reich. “Public-Private Partnerships and Antiretroviral
Drugs for HIV/AIDS: Lessons from Botswana.” Health Affairs 24(2): 545-551, 2005.
6. Reich, Michael R., ed., Public-Private Partnerships for Public Health. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2002.
7. Institute on Governance. “Defining Governance.” http://iog.ca/defining-governance
(accessed June 4, 2018).
8. Reich, Michael R. “Public-Private Partnerships for Public Health,” in: Michael R. Reich,
ed., Public-Private Partnerships for Public Health, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2002, pp. 1-18.
9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “Partnership Governance
in Global Health, Annotated Bibliography of Selected Resources.” Prepared as an initial
reference document for the Workshop on Exploring Partnership Governance in Global
Health Planning Committee. Washington, DC: NASEM, 2017.

APPENDIX A 79
10. FSG. Adapting Through Crisis: Lessons from ACHAP’s Contributions to the Fight
Against HIV/AIDS in Botswana. Boston, MA: FSG, 2014.
11. Buse, Ken, and Andrew M. Harmer. “Seven Habits of Highly Effective Global Public-
Private Health Partnerships: Practice and Potential.” Social Science & Medicine 64:
259-271, 2007.
12. Buckup, Sebastian. “Global Public-Private Partnerships Against Neglected Diseases:
Building Governance Structures for Effective Outcomes.” Health Economics, Policy
and Law 3(Pt 1): 31-50, 2008.
13. Bezanson, Keith A., and Paul Isenman. Governance of New Global Partnerships: Chal-
lenges, Weaknesses, Lessons. CGD Policy Paper 014. Washington, DC: Center for
Global Development, 2012.
14. Bears, Daniel. Literature Scan—Commissioned Paper for Exploring Partnership Gov-
ernance in Global Health. Washington, DC: NAS Research Center, 11 August 2017.
15. Pyone, Thidar, Helen Smith, and Nynke van den Broek. “Frameworks to Assess Health
Systems Governance: A Systematic Review.” Health Policy and Planning 32: 710-722,
2017.
16. Fox, Jonathan. “The Uncertain Relationship Between Transparency and Accountabil-
ity.” Development in Practice 17(4-5): 663-671, 2007.
17. Scott, C. Figuring Out Accountability: Selected Uses of Official Statistics by Civil
Society to Improve Public Sector Performance. Q Squared Working Paper No. 37.
Toronto: Centre for International Studies of the University of Toronto; 2007. Accessed
19 August 2017 at: https://www.trentu.ca/ids/sites/trentu.ca.ids/files/documents/
Q2_WP37_Scott.pdf.
18. Vian, Taryn, Jillian C. Kohler, Gilles Forte, and Deidre Dimancesco. “Promoting Trans-
parency, Accountability, and Access Through a Multi-Stakeholder Initiative: Lessons
from the Medicines Transparency Alliance.” Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and
Practice 10(18): 1-11, 2017.
19. CHESTRAD International. Institutionalize, Resource and Measure: Meaningful Civil
Society Engagement in Global and National Health Policy, Financing, Measurement
and Accountability. United Kingdom: CHESTRAD International, June 2015.
20. Reynaers, Anne-Marie, and Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen. “Transparency in Public-
Private Partnerships: Not So Bad After All?” Public Administration 93(3): 609-626, 2015.
21. Roberts, Marc J., William C. Hsiao, Peter Berman, and Michael R. Reich. Getting Health
Reform Right: A Guide to Improve Performance and Equity. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2004.
22. Sands, Valerie. “The Right to Know and Obligation to Provide: Public Private Partner-
ships, Public Knowledge, Public Accountability, Public Disenfranchisement and Prison
Cases.” UNSW Law Journal 29(3): 334-341, 2006.
23. Rubin, Edward. “The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-Administrative Impulse.”
Michigan Law Review 103: 2073, 2005.
24. Kamya, Carol, Jessica Shearer, Gilbert Asiimwe, Emily Carnahan, Nicole Salisbury,
Peter Waiswa, Jennifer Brinkerhoff, and Dai Hozumi. “Evaluating Global Health Part-
nerships: A Case Study of a Gavi HPV Vaccine Application Process in Uganda.” Inter-
national Journal of Health Policy and Management 6(6): 327-338, 2017.
25. McLaughlin, John A., and Gretchen B. Jordan. “Logic Models: A Tool for Telling Your
Program’s Performance Story.” Evaluation and Program Planning 22: 65-72, 1999.
26. Rockers, Peter C., Veronika J. Wirtz, Chukwuemeka A. Umeh, Preethi M. Swamy, and
Richard O. Laing. “Industry-Led Access-to-Medicines Initiatives in Low- and Middle-
Income Countries: Strategies and Evidence.” Health Affairs 36(4): 706-713, 2017.
27. Gaventa, John, and Rosemary McGee. “The Impact of Transparency and Accountability
Initiatives. Synthesis Report.” Development Policy Review 31(S1): S3-S28, 2013.

28. IFPMA. “Health Partnership Directory.” Web page. http://partnerships.ifpma.org/

partnerships/by-letter/all (accessed April 16, 2018).
29. Marine Stewardship Council. “The Blue MSC Label: Sustainable, Traceable, Wild
Seafood.” https://www.msc.org/about-us/blue-msc-ecolabel-traceable-sustainable-
seafood.
30. Good Housekeeping. “About the Good Housekeeping Seal.” http://www.
goodhousekeeping.com/product-reviews/seal (accessed April 16, 2018).
31. International Organization for Standardization. “ISO 9000 – Quality Management.”
https://www.iso.org/iso-9001-quality-management.html (acceseed April 16, 2018).

Appendix B
World Café Reports on Internal

Governance of Individual Partners
and Impacts on Approaches to
Public–Private Partnerships
D
uring the workshop, the participants engaged in a World Café dis-
cussion at their tables during which they answered two questions:
• Based on your experiences, what have been the main barriers

your organization has experienced when engaging in public–
private partnerships (PPPs)?
• How have you or your organization overcome or managed these
barriers to engagement?

In this short session, Jo Ivey Boufford and Kevin Etter summarized
examples of some responses from individuals from the six participating
groups. None of these examples should be construed as reflecting consen-
sus by any of the small working groups. Regarding the first question (see
Table B-1), Etter said there were a few themes that the session highlighted,
including alignment and understanding among the partners, measure-
ment, and trust, but overall the groups identified a rich and diverse set
of challenges.
Boufford then summarized the answers to the second question on
how to address these challenges (see Table B-2). The solutions included
investing time at the start of the partnership to institutionalize the part-
nership and earn buy-in from leadership. Other solutions included being
able to adapt to change, being transparent and honest, deploying appro-
priate metrics, and establishing mechanisms for resolving disagreements
and barriers to understanding.
81

82
TABLE B-1 Responses to World Café Question 1: What Are the Main Barriers Your Organization Has
Experienced When Engaging in PPPs?
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Failure to Alignment Identifying the Lack of Alignment: defined Assumptions;
document vision, of expectations; champions: skill metrics/agreed purpose of PPP private-sector
mission, intent definition and sets and expertise; performance mistrust; speaking
measure of retention of the same language;
success; leadership relationships power dynamics
differences;
adaptability
People: Risk: political, Lacking the right Lack of Measure Lack of trust:
champions and financial, indicators to management and evaluate difference in
host lost; capacity reputation, legal measure success of capabilities comparative value- ideology
the partnership added of PPP
Understanding Local ownership: Alignment of Lack of mutual Transaction costs Strategy seen as
the business and exit strategy and interests: evolution understanding luxury versus
players sustainability and redefinition in motivations, necessity
assumptions,
purpose, and
language
NOTES: This table shows examples of responses from individual participants and should not be construed as reflecting group consensus. PPP
= public–private partnership.

SOURCE: As presented by Jo Ivey Boufford and Kevin Etter on October 26, 2017.

TABLE B-2 Responses to World Café Question 2: How Have You or Your Organization Overcome or
Managed These Barriers to Engagement?
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Invest time up Document Institutionalize Use metrics to Plan with candor Invest time up
front on common everything partnership with manage front to discuss
purpose buy-in from goals, roles, and
leadership and responsibilities
staff
Realize Establish or Cultural liaison to Define relevant Articulate key Understand

disagreement build in guide partnership qualification for performance motivations of
will happen; mechanisms for and align interests leaders (and be indicators to be each partner and
document pattern change in advance and expectations willing to act if evaluated be honest about
for resolving change is needed) limitations
disagreement
Define the end Involve local Be open to Reminder of Passion, initiative, Experience success
game ownership from rethinking roles; agreed purpose; efficiency and be honest in
beginning; be leave room for declare prejudices; failure
transparent about innovation from understand

sustainability the beginning common interests;
goals/road map apply metrics to
guide decision
making

NOTE: This table shows examples of responses from individual participants and should not be construed as reflecting group consensus.
SOURCE: As presented by Jo Ivey Boufford and Kevin Etter on October 26, 2017.
83

Appendix C
Speaker and Moderator

Biographical Sketches
Jo Ivey Boufford, M.D., is Co-Chair of the Forum on Public–Private

Partnerships for Global Health and Safety and immediate past President
of The New York Academy of Medicine. She is a Clinical Professor of
Global Public Health at the College of Global Public Health at New York
University, where she is also Professor of Public Service, Health Policy,
and Management at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public
Service and Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the New York University
School of Medicine. She served as Dean of the Robert F. Wagner Gradu-
ate School of Public Service at New York University from June 1997 to
November 2002. Prior to that, she served as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices (HHS) from November 1993 to January 1997, and as Acting Assistant
Secretary from January 1997 to May 1997. While at HHS, she was the U.S.
representative on the Executive Board of the World Health Organization
(WHO) from 1994 to 1997. She served in a variety of senior positions
and as President of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corpo-
ration (HHC), the largest municipal system in the United States, from
December 1985 until October 1989. Dr. Boufford was awarded a Robert
Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellowship at the Institute of Medicine in
Washington, DC, for 1979–1980. She currently serves on the boards of the
United Hospital Fund and the Health Effects Institute. She was elected to
membership in the National Academy of Medicine in 1992 and served on
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Board
on Global Health and Board on African Science Academy Development.
85

She served two 4-year terms as the Foreign Secretary of the National
Academy of Medicine between 2010 and 2014 and was elected to mem-
bership for the National Academy of Public Administration in 2015. She
received Honorary Doctorate of Science degrees from the State University
of New York, Brooklyn (1992), New York Medical College (2007), Pace
University (2011), and Toledo University (2012). She has been a Fellow of
The New York Academy of Medicine since 1988 and a Trustee since 2004.
Dr. Boufford attended Wellesley College for 2 years and received her B.A.
(Psychology) magna cum laude from the University of Michigan˝ and her
M.D., with distinction, from the University of Michigan Medical School.
She is board-certified in pediatrics.
Douglas M. Brooks, M.S.W., a social worker, began his career in HIV/

AIDS with his work for the Provincetown AIDS Support Group. He went
on to become the Senior Vice President for Community, Health, and Public
Policy at the Justice Resource Institute (JRI), a regional health and human
service agency based in Massachusetts. He also previously served as
Executive Director of the Sidney Borum Jr. Health Center. He also served
as Chair of the Board of Trustees of AIDS United in Washington, DC. In
2010, Mr. Brooks was appointed to the Presidential Advisory Council on
HIV/AIDS (PACHA) and subsequently named that body’s liaison to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Ser-
vices Administration Advisory Committee. In 2014, he was appointed to
be Director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. In 2015,
Mr. Brooks spearheaded an update to the National HIV/AIDS Strategy,
which is a 5-year plan that guides priorities and principles for our nation
in our response to HIV. Mr. Brooks is an openly gay man living with
HIV. During his time as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, he
focused on turning attention to populations of people most affected by
the epidemic—such as gay and bisexual men, especially those of color,
black women, transgender men and women, and people living in the
southern United States. He supported the widespread scale up of PrEP
(pre-exposure prophylaxis), and included this in the updated strategy as
a key way to reduce new infections in the United States. In May 2016,
Mr. Brooks started in the newly created role of Senior Director for Com-
munity Engagement at Gilead Sciences.
Anthony Brown, J.D., M.B.A., is Senior Legal Counsel with Gavi, the
Vaccine Alliance. Since joining Gavi in 2005, Mr. Brown has been instru-
mental in a number of corporate initiatives, including the setup and
continued operation of two major multistakeholder financing schemes,
the International Finance Facility for Immunisation and the Advance
Market Commitment for Pneumococcal Vaccine to provide long-term

APPENDIX C 87
guaranteed funding to Gavi and incentivize manufacturers to develop a

pneumococcal vaccine for Gavi countries respectively. He has advised on
and negotiated multiple private partnership engagements, such as Gavi’s
2016 Advance Purchase Commitment for an Ebola vaccine. He also co-
led Gavi’s 2008 Governance transition from three separate entities into
a Swiss international organization. Besides his corporate and financing
expertise, Mr. Brown advises on issues across Gavi’s spectrum, includ-
ing governance, country programs, regulatory, insurance, and personnel-
related matters. From 2015 to 2016, on a secondment, Mr. Brown was
Acting General Counsel/Senior Legal Officer with the CGIAR (Consulta-
tive Group on International Agricultural Research) System Organization,
a global agricultural research partnership, where he served on the gov-
ernance transition team as the organization underwent a major restruc-
turing. Afterward, he led the development of the organization’s new
partnership financing agreements. Prior to Gavi, Mr. Brown worked in
Washington, DC, with the law firm of Williams & Connolly. Prior to grad-
uate school, Mr. Brown worked in the New York office of the international
consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. Mr. Brown is a graduate of Colum-
bia College and earned his J.D. from the University of P
ennsylvania Law
School and his M.B.A. from the Wharton School.
Steve Davis, J.D., M.A., president and CEO of PATH, combines extensive
experience as a technology business leader, global health advocate, and
social innovator to accelerate great ideas and bring lifesaving solutions
to scale. Prior to joining PATH in 2012, he served as director of Social
Innovation at McKinsey & Company, CEO of internet pioneer and global
digital media firm Corbis, and interim director of the Infectious Disease
Research Institute. He also practiced law at the international law firm
K&L Gates. Earlier, he worked extensively on refugee programs and poli-
cies, as well as Chinese politics and law. Mr. Davis is a lecturer on social
innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He currently is
a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, serves on the boards of
InterAction and Challenge Seattle, and sits on several advisory groups,
including as a trustee of the World Economic Forum’s Global Health
Challenge, on the stakeholder advisory panel for the global insurance and
asset management firm AXA, and on the advisory board for Medtronics
Labs. Mr. Davis earned his B.A. from Princeton University, his M.A. in
Chinese studies from the University of Washington, and his law degree
from Columbia University. He also studied at Beijing University.
Mark Dybul, M.D., is a professor in the Department of Medicine at

Georgetown University Medical Center and the Faculty Director of the
Center for Global Health and Quality. Dr. Dybul has worked on HIV and

public health for more than 25 years as a clinician, scientist, teacher, and
administrator, and most recently as the Executive Director of the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. After graduating from
Georgetown Medical School in Washington DC, Dr. Dybul joined the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases as a research fellow
under director Dr. Anthony Fauci, where he conducted basic and clini-
cal studies on HIV virology, immunology, and treatment optimization,
including the first randomized controlled trial with combination anti
retroviral therapy in Africa. Dr. Dybul was one of the founding architects
in the formation of The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,
better known as PEPFAR. After serving as Chief Medical Officer and
Assistant, Deputy, and Acting Director, he was appointed as its leader
in 2006, becoming the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, with the rank of
Ambassador at the level of an Assistant Secretary of State. He served until
early 2009. Dr. Dybul has written extensively in scientific and policy litera-
ture and has received several Honorary Degrees and awards, including a
Doctor of Science, Honoris Causa, from Georgetown University.
Kevin Etter, who has worked for more than three decades with UPS
(United Parcel Service), is an internationally recognized thought leader
in the field of logistics and supply chain service innovation. A few of
his accomplishments to date include large aircraft fleet acquisition and
integration projects; development of new services built through focus-
ing on strategic mergers and acquisition activities; new service ideas and
innovation for the pharmaceutical, medical device, and health products
supply chain and security; and new ways of thinking about corporate
social responsibility. Mr. Etter is a strong voice and advocate in the world
of community service and corporate philanthropy, active both at home,
in Europe, and at UPS. A recent partnership for the UPS Foundation
had him seconded (executive on loan) to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, in
Geneva, Switzerland. There, Mr. Etter played a key role in advising,
consulting, and developing solutions supporting Gavi’s Supply Chain
Strategy. Mr. Etter pioneered innovative models for public–private part-
nerships with Gavi, United Nations organizations, and other international
nongovernmental organizations. Mr. Etter has recently presented a TED
Talk titled “I am the Donation” that features his work with Gavi and
highlights the opportunity that business communities have in moving
beyond checkbook philanthropy to impact real change in our world today.
Clarion Johnson, M.D., Co-Chair of the Forum on Public–Private Partner

ships for Global Health and Safety, served as Global Medical Direc-
tor of ExxonMobil Corporation until his retirement in 2013. Currently,
Dr. Johnson is a consultant to ExxonMobil, the immediate past Chair of

APPENDIX C 89
The Joint Commission’s International and Resource Boards, and a mem-

ber of the Yale School of Public Health Leadership Council. He serves on
several boards including the Bon Secours Hospital System, the Advisory
Board of the Yale School of Public Health, and the Board of the Milbank
Memorial Fund. Dr. Johnson previously served on the U.S. National Acad-
emies’ Board on Global Health. Dr. Johnson also has a U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services Secretary appointment to the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board and was a
member of the Virginia Governor’s Task Force on Health reform and co-
chair of the Insurance Reform Task Force. He is the past chair of V
irginia
Health Care Foundation and of the Board of City Lights Charter School
in Washington, DC. He served as advisor and lecturer in the Harvard
Medical School’s department of continuing education “Global Clinic
Course” from 2005 to 2008. In 2013 he received the President’s Award
from the Oil and International Petroleum Industry Environment Con-
servation Association (IPIECA) and Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) for
contributions to health, and in 2012 he was the recipient of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Award for Health, Safety, Security, Environ-
ment, and Social Responsibility. In 2011, he received a medal from the
French Army’s Institut de Recherche Biomédicale for Project Tetrapole: a
public–private partnership in malaria research. Dr. Johnson is a graduate
of Sarah L awrence College and member of its Board of Trustees and of
the Yale School of Medicine. While on active duty in the U.S. Army, he
also trained as a microwave researcher at Walter Reed Army Institute
of Research. He is board-certified in internal medicine, cardiology, and
occupational medicine.
Lauren A. Marks, J.D., is the Director of Private-Sector Engagement in

the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy
(S/GAC), which leads the implementation of The U.S. President’s Emer-
gency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Ms. Marks leads the Private-Sector
Engagement Team to support the development, implementation, and
evaluation of policies, interventions, and strategies for public–private
partnerships (PPPs) by working closely with country teams, implementa-
tion partners, private-sector organizations, foundations, and multilateral
institutions. Ms. Marks comes to S/GAC from the private sector, having
managed the HIV/AIDS portfolio for Johnson & Johnson’s Corporate
Contributions group. Prior to joining Johnson & Johnson, Ms. Marks
served as the Health Program/Public–Private Partnership Advisor at the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)/South Africa, where
she built several successful PPPs between the U.S. government, the pri-
vate sector, and nongovernmental organizations. Ms. Marks also worked
at USAID in Washington, DC, in the Bureau for Global Health, where she

provided technical support to USAID missions in several African and

Asian countries. Prior to USAID, Ms. Marks was a corporate attorney at
Nixon Peabody LLP in New York. She has a law degree from Georgetown
University and a B.A. from Duke University.
Sonal Mehta, M.S.W., I.M.P.M., advanced to the level of Chief Executive

of Alliance India in October 2016 after serving in the capacity of Direc-
tor of Programmes and Policy in the organization for 9 years. With three
decades of experience in sexual health and development, Ms. Mehta
guides Alliance India’s mission of community action for ending AIDS
with programmatic experience and management smartness. Before join-
ing Alliance India, Ms. Mehta was Challenge Fund Manager in the United
Kingdom’s Department for International Development program that led
to many path-breaking interventions in India, including bringing oral
substitution therapy for people who inject drugs. Prior to that she worked
with organizations in India, including NACO (National Aids Control
Organization), Gujarat SACS (State AIDS Control Society), CHETNA
(Centre for Health Education, Training and Nutrition Awareness), and
SEWA (Self Employed Women’s Association), as well as with the Pacific
Institute of Women’s Health in Los Angeles, California. Ms. Mehta has
an M.S.W. from the Faculty of Social Work, Vadodara, Gujarat. In a stride
to continue learning, she completed her International Masters in Practic-
ing Management (I.M.P.M.) from McGill University and is pursuing a
master’s in Science in International Management from Lancaster Univer-
sity, United Kingdom.
Kenneth Miller, J.D., is Associate General Counsel at the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, where he provides legal advice to the foundation’s
Global Health Division to help structure and negotiate agreements for
innovative charitable investments, including grants, contracts, and
program-related investments to develop and deliver vaccines, drugs,
and diagnostics to people most in need. Before joining the foundation
in 2015, Mr. Miller was a partner in the technology transactions group
at Perkins Coie LLP, an international law firm based in Seattle, where he
represented leading-edge technology companies in complex intellectual
property and commercial transactions.
John T. Monahan, J.D., is a Senior Advisor for Global Initiatives to

Georgetown University’s President John J. DeGioia and a Senior Fellow
at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy. In his current position,
he advances university-wide initiatives in global health and related areas;
chairs a senior-level committee examining the future of Georgetown’s
masters programs in international development; co-chairs the Lancet-

APPENDIX C 91
Georgetown Commission on Global Health and Law; and has been

teaching global health courses in Georgetown’s foreign service, law, and
nursing schools. Over the course of his distinguished career, Mr. Monahan
has played multiple leadership roles in government, diplomacy, politics,
philanthropy, and academia at the global, national, state, and local l evels.
He has focused on managing complex health, social service, and develop-
ment issues and programs affecting low-income and vulnerable popula-
tions in the United States and abroad. From 2010 to 2014, Mr. Monahan
served as Special Advisor for Global Health Partnerships at the U.S.
Department of State. Under the leadership of Secretaries Clinton and
Kerry, he was the chief architect of the Obama administration’s success-
ful strategy for reforming the operations and replenishing the finances of
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an innovative
public–private partnership based in Switzerland. He served as the U.S.
government’s representative on the Global Fund’s board; a member of
the board’s Comprehensive Reform Working Group; and Vice-Chair of the
board’s Finance and Operational Performance Committee. In 2009–2010,
he was Director of the Office of Global Health Affairs at the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services (HHS) and served as a primary
liaison to the World Health Organization’s leadership during the H1N1
influenza pandemic. He also served as Counselor to the Secretary of HHS
and represented the Department on the White House–led interagency task
force implementing the stimulus legislation in 2009. Mr. Monahan also
has extensive experience with domestic public policy issues. From 2000
to 2007, he served as Senior Fellow at the Annie E. Casey Foundation,
a philanthropy dedicated to low-income children in the United States.
He advised the Foundation’s senior leadership on federal policy issues;
managed its relationship with Living Cities, a public–private partnership
devoted to U.S. community development; and supported its use and
advocacy of loan guarantees and innovative program-related investment
strategies. During the Clinton administration, Mr. Monahan served as
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs at HHS, where he represented the
department in negotiations with governors and state officials regarding
scores of Medicaid and welfare demonstration waivers; and as Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, in which he was
responsible for assisting in implementation of federal welfare reform. In
his varied career, he has also served as the founding Executive Director
of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law;
Legal Counsel to U.S. Senator David Pryor; Law Clerk to U.S. District
Court Judge John Grady; and is a veteran of numerous political races,
including the Mondale and Clinton presidential campaigns. A member of
the Council on Foreign Relations, he serves on the Advisory Committee
of the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health

and on the boards of the Lever Fund and the U.S. Committee for Refugees
and Immigrants. Mr. Monahan holds bachelor’s and law degrees cum
laude from Georgetown University.
C. D. Mote, Jr., Ph.D., M.S., is president of the National Academy of Engi-

neering (NAE) and Regents Professor on leave from the University of
Maryland. He was president of the University of Maryland for 12 years and
was on the University of California, Berkeley, faculty for 31 years, where
he held an endowed chair in mechanical systems, chaired the Mechanical
Engineering Department, and served as vice chancellor. As president of
the NAE, he is committed to ensuring highly competitive talent in the
U.S. engineering workforce, facilitating public understanding of engineer-
ing, demonstrating how engineering creates a better quality of life, and
engaging the academy in global engineering issues in support of national
interests. A highlight of global engineering engagement is the promotion
of the NAE’s 14 Grand Challenges for Engineering from 2008, whose solu-
tions are goals to achieve the vision “Continuation of life on the planet,
making our world more sustainable, safe, healthy, and joyful.” Dr. Mote
is internationally recognized for his research on the dynamics of gyro-
scopic systems and the biomechanics of snow skiing. He has produced
more than 300 publications and is a fellow of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences, American Academy of Mechanics, American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science, and Acoustical Society of America,
and an honorary fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME). He is a Foreign Member of the Chinese Academy of Engineer-
ing and an Honorary Academician of the Academia Sinica. He is the 2005
recipient of the NAE Founders Award and the 2011 recipient of the ASME
Medal in recognition of his comprehensive body of work on the dynamics
of moving flexible structures and his leadership in academia.
Nina Nathani, J.D., is a founding partner of Matalon & Nathani, LLP. She
has devoted nearly 20 years of her career to providing legal advice and
counsel to nonprofit organizations of all sizes who work across different
sectors and with support from a variety of U.S. and foreign donors, both
public and private. Her expertise extends to traditional nonprofit gover-
nance, operations, and compliance matters, including establishment of
nonprofit corporations, applications for tax-exempt status, corporate gov-
ernance and ethics, grants and contracts, fundraising (including charitable
solicitations), gift acceptance policies, procurement of goods and services,
intellectual property, commercial leases and other agreements, lobbying,
and employment and consultancy agreements. She also has significant
expertise in advising global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on
matters particular to their overseas operations, including establishing

APPENDIX C 93
branch offices, working with local NGOs, and monitoring and evaluation
of subrecipients and subcontractors, as well as the formation, governance,
and management of collaborative arrangements among NGOs, commer-
cial companies, and governmental and multilateral institutions, with a
focus on public–private partnerships. Her early legal career included
several years working as an associate at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP and Steptoe & Johnson LLP and as an Attorney Advisor in the
USAID Office of General Counsel.
Cate O’Kane knows that partnerships can make change happen, be that
in Europe, Asia, Africa, or her current base in the United States. With an
innate curiosity about people and culture, she has successfully led multi-
disciplinary and multinational teams and developed an understanding of
the finer nuances of partnership. As founder of partnership consultancy
&co, Ms. O’Kane now develops strategic partnerships that ensure success
for all parties involved, be that a multinational company, a government
agency, or a nonprofit implementer. Previously, Ms. O’Kane was Direc-
tor of Corporate Partnerships & Philanthropy at PSI in Washington, DC,
where she led the development of philanthropic, social responsibility,
and shared value partnerships, integrating the worlds of purpose and
profit to deliver win-win opportunities. During her tenure at PSI, corpo-
rate partnerships quadrupled in number, and revenue from partnerships
grew 600 percent. She emphasized the value of partnerships to provide
not only financial investment at a country level but also as a means of
knowledge sharing and individual capacity development through fellow-
ships and joint thought leadership. Prior to her time at PSI’s headquarters,
Ms. O’Kane was the Technical Services Director at PSI/Botswana where
she led the platform’s marketing, communications, and research pro-
grams across a multitude of HIV/AIDS interventions. In building part-
nerships across sectors from defense to health to communications, she
produced the first Botswana edutainment television series Morwalela,
featuring the lives of Batswana living with HIV, and developed a camou-
flage condom in partnership with the Botswana Defense Force. She spent
her time before PSI working in Europe and Asia for 16 years in advertis-
ing and communications roles. Her last role in industry was as Director
of J. Walter Thompson’s North East Asia team, based in Shanghai and
working to expand market share for companies in this dynamic region.
She is a member of the Devex Strategic Advisory Council, working across
sectors to encourage stronger partnership practices, and was a founding
member of the INGO collective within FSG’s Shared Value Initiative.
She has spoken on the development, role, and management of partner-
ships for impact at USAID, FSG, Devex, SOCAP (Social Capital Markets),
United Nations Global Compact, and PYXERA Global events.

Muhammad Ali Pate, M.D., M.B.A., is CEO of Big Win Philanthropy.

Dr. Pate was Minister of State for Health of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria from July 2011 to July 2013. He led the successful Presidential
Task Force on Polio Eradication in Nigeria and developed the results-
based initiative Save One Million Lives. From 2013 to 2015, Dr. Pate was
visiting Professor at Duke University’s Global Health Institute. Previ-
ously, Dr. Pate served as the Chief Executive of Nigeria’s Primary Health
Care Development Agency and worked for several years at the World
Bank Group in Washington, DC. He is a founding Co-Chair of the board
of the Private-Sector Health Alliance in Nigeria and serves on Merck’s
Advisory Board for Merck for Mothers, Harvard’s Defeating Malaria
Initiative, the FHI 360 Advisory Board, and the World Economic Forum
Global Agenda Council on Demographic Dynamics. He received the
Geneva Health Forum Award in 2014 and the Harvard Health Leader-
ship Award in 2012. Dr. Pate is certified by the American Board of Inter-
nal Medicine in the specialty of Internal Medicine with a subspecialty in
infectious diseases. He also holds an M.B.A. in Health Sector Manage-
ment Concentration.
Regina Rabinovich, M.D., M.P.H., is the ExxonMobil Malaria Scholar in

Residence at Harvard University and International Scholar at ISGLOBAL
at the University of Barcelona. She has more than 25 years of experience
in global health across research, public health, and philanthropic sectors,
with a focus on strategy, global health product development, and the
introduction and scale up of tools and strategies resulting in impact on
endemic populations. From 2003 to 2012, Dr. Rabinovich served as Direc-
tor of the Infectious Diseases division at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foun-
dation, overseeing the development and implementation of strategies for
the prevention, treatment, and control of infectious diseases of particular
relevance to malaria, pneumonia, diarrhea, and neglected infectious dis-
eases. Dr. Rabinovich has served as Chief of the Clinical and Regulatory
Affairs Branch at the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Dis-
eases (NIAID), focusing on the development and evaluation of vaccines
through a network of U.S. clinical research units. She participated in the
Children’s Vaccine Initiative, a global effort to prevent infectious diseases
in children in the developing world. In 1999, Dr. Rabinovich became
director of the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, a project funded by the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to advance efforts to develop promis-
ing malaria vaccine candidates. She serves on the boards of AERAS, a
nonprofit biotech company focused on development of vaccines for tuber-
culosis; the Sabin Vaccine Institute; and the Catholic Medical Mission
Board. She is the President-Elect of the American Society of Tropical Medi-
cine and Hygiene. Dr. Rabinovich holds a medical degree from Southern

APPENDIX C 95
I llinois University and a Master’s of Public Health degree from the Uni-
versity of North Carolina.
Michael R. Reich, Ph.D., is the Taro Takemi Research Professor of Inter-

national Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
He received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University in 1981 and
has been a member of the Harvard faculty since 1983. Dr. Reich has long-
standing research interests in the political economy of pharmaceutical
policy, access to medicines, and public–private partnerships, and has pub-
lished extensively on these topics. Several publications are particularly
relevant to this Workshop. In 2002, he edited a book called Public–Private
Partnerships for Public Health (Harvard University Press). He co-authored
the landmark textbook on health systems, Getting Health Reform Right: A
Guide to Improving Performance and Equity (Oxford University Press, 2004,
with M. J. Roberts, W. C. Hsiao, and P. Berman). In 2008, Dr. Reich pub-
lished a book with Laura J. Frost, Access: How do Good Health Technologies
Get to Poor People in Poor Countries? (Harvard University Press, 2008).
Many of his publications are available on his Harvard faculty website. He
was a member of the Lancet Commission on Essential Medicines Policies,
which published its report in fall 2016. He is also a founding Editor-in-
Chief of the new journal Health Systems & Reform, now in its fourth year.
Peter Rockers, Sc.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of

Global Health at the Boston University School of Public Health, where he
is also the Director of the Monitoring and Evaluation certificate program.
His research primarily focuses on evaluating interventions and policies
that aim to strengthen health systems in developing countries. He is co-
principal investigator for a project developing a framework for evaluating
pharmaceutical industry-led access to medicines programs. He is also co-
investigator for a cluster randomized trial in Kenya evaluating the impact
of Novartis Access on the availability and price of noncommunicable
disease medicines. Dr. Rockers received a Doctor of Science degree from
the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Danielle Rollmann, M.P.A., leads Access Priorities within Pfizer’s Global

Policy team. She drives significant cross-functional initiatives to enhance
patient access to medicines, including supporting Pfizer’s engagement in
Access Accelerated, a multicompany initiative to address the full spectrum
of access barriers to medicines for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in
lower-income countries, and providing policy support for innovative
financing and reimbursement approaches. Ms. Rollmann was previously
a partner in the Global Health Practice of Booz & Company, a strategic
management consulting firm. She served clients in the pharmaceutical,

diagnostics, consumer health, and other life sciences industries for 17

years, as an advisor on commercial innovation, growth and marketing
strategy, and business transformation.
BT Slingsby, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., is the founding CEO and Executive Direc-
tor of the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund (GHIT Fund). The
GHIT Fund is a public–private partnership in Japan between the govern-
ment of Japan (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Health, Labour
and Welfare); 16 life science companies (Astellas, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo,
Eisai, Fujifilm, GlaxoSmithKline, J ohnson & Johnson, Kyowa Hakko Kirin,
Merck, M itsubishi Tanabe, Nipro, Otsuka, S hionogi, S
umitomo Dainippon,
Sysmex, and Takeda), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Wellcome
Trust; and the United Nations Development Programme. Launched in April
2013 with a commitment of more than $100 million, GHIT has grown to
manage more than $350 million with a portfolio of more than 50 invest-
ments in the research and development of novel Japanese innovations for
global health. The combination of Japan’s government and its pharmaceuti-
cal industry—the second largest in the world—brings a powerful engine
of knowledge and innovation to the development of medications for the
developing world. Prior to the GHIT Fund, he was global head for access
and strategy for the developing world at Eisai Co. & Ltd. Dr. Slingsby is
adjunct professor at Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine and the
University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine and has published more
than 50 peer-reviewed articles in English and Japanese in journals including
Journal of General Internal Medicine, Journal of Public Health, and The Lancet.
He graduated from Brown University, earned his Masters and Doctorate
from Kyoto University and the University of Tokyo, and received his Medi-
cal Doctorate from The George Washington University.
Jeffrey L. Sturchio, Ph.D., is President and CEO at Rabin Martin, a global

health strategy consulting firm, and former President and CEO of the
Global Health Council. Before joining the Council in 2009, Dr. Sturchio was
vice president of Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co., Inc., president
of the Merck Company Foundation, and chairman of the U.S. Corporate
Council on Africa (CCA), whose 160 member companies represent some
85 percent of total U.S. private-sector investment in Africa. While at Merck
& Co., Inc., he was a leader of the company’s global HIV/AIDS policy
for more than a decade and was centrally involved in the UN/Industry
Accelerating Access Initiative established in 2000 to help improve HIV/
AIDS care and treatment in the developing world. He was a member
of the board of the African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships in
Botswana (2005–2009) and a member of the private-sector delegation to
the board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

APPENDIX C 97
(2002–2008). He is chairman of the Corporate Council on Africa, chairman

of the BroadReach Institute for Training and Education, and a member of
the boards of ACHAP (African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships),
the Science History Institute, and Friends of the Global Fight Against
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Dr. Sturchio is also currently a visiting
scholar at the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the
Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University; Senior Asso-
ciate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; a principal of
the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network; Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science; a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and the Arthur W. Page Society; and an advisor to
amfAR, Intrahealth International, and the Partnership for Quality Medi-
cal Donations. He received an A.B. in history from Princeton University
and a Ph.D. in the history and sociology of science from the University of
Pennsylvania. His publications include Noncommunicable Diseases in the
Developing World: Addressing Global Gaps in Policy and Research (edited with
L. Galambos, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013).
Valerie Wenderoth, J.D., is an attorney-advisor within the U.S. Depart-

ment of State’s Office of the Legal Adviser responsible for the entire area
of financial and appropriations law (other than foreign assistance), as
well as other highly specialized areas, such as financial management and
reporting, fiscal irregularities and contingencies, public–private partner-
ships, and eGovernment. Prior to joining the U.S. Department of State in
November 2007, Ms. Wenderoth held various positions within the Office
of the General Counsel for the Department of the Navy, including Deputy
Assistant General Counsel for Research, Development, and Acquisition
and Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Financial Management and
Comptroller. Ms. Wenderoth began her law career as an assistant counsel
at the Naval Sea Systems Command, focusing on ship building and repair
claims and litigation. Ms. Wenderoth is a graduate of the University of
Colorado Boulder, where she earned a B.A. in History and German. She
earned her J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law.
Veronika J. Wirtz, M.Sc., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Depart-

ment of Global Health at the Boston University School of Public Health,
where she is also Director of the World Health Organization Collaborat-
ing Center in Pharmaceutical Policy. Her research interests include the
role of the private sector to promote equitable access and efficient use of
medicines in low- and middle-income countries, medicines price analysis,
generic medicines policies, and access to medicines for noncommunicable
diseases. Between 2014 and 2016 she was the Co-Chair of The Lancet
Commission on Essential Medicine Policies, which published its report

Essential Medicines for Universal Health Coverage in Fall 2016. She has
worked as a technical advisor for various international organizations,
among them the World Health Organization; the Pan American Health
Organization; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria;
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and Alliance for Health Systems
and Policy Research. She is a Visiting Professor of the National Institute of
Public Health (INSP), Mexico, where she was a faculty member between
2005 and 2012. She received her training as a pharmacist from Albert-
Ludwigs-University in Freiburg, Germany, and her Master in Clinical
Pharmacy and Ph.D. from the University of London, United Kingdom.
Tadataka (Tachi) Yamada, M.D., is a Venture Partner with Frazier Health-

care Partners. Prior to joining Frazier, he was Executive Vice-President,
Chief Medical & Scientific Officer, and a board member of Takeda Phar-
maceuticals. Dr. Yamada has served as President of the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation Global Health Program. In this position, he oversaw
grants totaling more than $9 billion in programs directed at applying
technologies to address major health challenges of the developing world
including tuberculosis, HIV, malaria and other infectious diseases, mal-
nutrition, and maternal and child health. He was formerly Chairman,
Research and Development and a Member of the Board of Directors of
GlaxoSmithKline and before that was Chair of the Department of Internal
Medicine and Physician-in-Chief at the University of Michigan Medical
Center. Dr. Yamada holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Stanford
University and obtained his M.D. from the New York University School
of Medicine. In recognition of his contributions to medicine and science,
he has been elected to membership in the National Academy of Medicine
(United States), the Academy of Medical Sciences (UK), and the National
Academy of Medicine (Mexico), and he has received an honorary appoint-
ment as Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British
Empire (KBE). He is a Past-President of the Association of American
Physicians and of the American Gastroenterological Association and he
has served as a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Sci-
ence and Technology and the Advisory Committee to the Director of the
National Institutes of Health. He is the Past Vice-Chair of the Council of
the National Academy of Medicine and Chairman of the Board of Direc-
tors of the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

Appendix D
Workshop Agenda
Forum on Public–Private Partnerships for Global Health and Safety

Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health: A Workshop
October 26, 2017
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001
AGENDA
T
he Forum on Public–Private Partnerships for Global Health and
Safety (PPP Forum) fosters a collaborative community of multi
sectoral leaders from business, government, foundations, humani-
tarian and professional organizations, academia, and civil society to
leverage the strengths of multiple sectors and disciplines to yield ben-
efits for global health and safety. The PPP Forum is premised on the
understanding that partnerships among these stakeholders can facilitate
dialogue and knowledge exchange; utilize technological and process effi-
ciencies; promote innovation; and synergistically advance humanitarian,
international development, and global health interests. The U.S. National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine provide a neutral
evidence-based platform through which the PPP Forum is convened.
This public workshop on partnership governance in global health
has been planned by an ad hoc expert committee. The intended audience
is the PPP Forum members and the organizations they represent, other
public and private entities that have participated in or are considering
collaboration across sectors to further global health and safety, and aca-
demics and researchers across multiple disciplines who are focused on
understanding the value proposition and impact of various models of
public–private partnerships to improve global health.
99

Workshop Objectives:
• Examine what role governance assumes in public–private part-
nerships for global health and how governance impacts the effec-
tiveness of these partnerships in improving health outcomes.
• Consider the range of stakeholders and sectors engaged in
global health partnerships and how specific organizational attri-
butes impact a partnership’s governance and decision-making
processes.
• Explore best practices, common challenges, and lessons learned
in the varying approaches to partnership governance.
• Illuminate the key issues in the governance of public–private
partnerships for global health with the goal of increasing their
effectiveness in improving health outcomes.
Workshop Context:
Definitions of governance are varied and depend on factors such as
the relevant actors, level of analysis, and existing political and social con-
texts. Broadly, governance is conceived of as the “art of steering societies
and organizations” (IOG). Within the context of PPPs, governance refers
to the structures, processes, and practices for decision making and for
ultimately accomplishing the goal of the partnership. Governance defines
the power structure of a PPP by regulating who makes decisions and
how and when the decisions are made, as well as how other stakeholders
are represented in the process. Effective governance mechanisms can be
a tool for providing direction and monitoring performance, promoting
accountability and transparency, enhancing legitimacy and ownership,
and managing both real and perceived conflicts of interest.
The governance of a partnership impacts its efficiency and effec-
tiveness in meeting its stated goal: strong governance can improve the
performance of PPPs while weak governance can undermine it. In global
health, PPPs have played a critical role in addressing global health needs;
however, they require careful steering to avoid potential pitfalls (Reich,
2002). An examination of PPPs in global health has revealed some com-
mon shortcomings in their governance, including weakness in or absence
of strategic direction, accountability mechanisms, monitoring and evalu-
ation systems, and risk management; lack of clarity in roles and responsi-
bilities; confusion between the roles of management versus governance;
and inadequate attention to resource mobilization and to the human
resources required to deliver programs and achieve objectives (Bezanson
and Isenman, 2012).
While the importance of governance in global health partnerships has
been identified, there is, in general, a lack of agreement on best practices

APPENDIX D 101
for their governance structures, policies, and practice (Stenson, 2010).

This is partly because of the significant variation across global health
partnerships in size, including the number of partners engaged, resources
allocated, geographic focus, and scope of the goals; the focus area, rang-
ing from infectious diseases to pandemic preparedness and to noncom-
municable diseases and injury prevention; the level of formality; and the
intended outcomes. Over the last several decades, with the increased
number of interested stakeholders, resources invested, and initiatives
launched within the global health field, effective governance of global
health PPPs is critical.
These PPPs are formal collaborative arrangements through which
public and private parties share risks, responsibilities, and decision-
making processes with the goal of collectively addressing a shared health
objective. While it is assumed that both government and a private-sector
actor will be formally engaged in the partnership, it is worth noting
the range of stakeholders engaged in global health partnerships, such
as national governments, bilateral development cooperation agencies,
United Nations agencies, multilateral and regional development banks,
hybrid global health initiatives, philanthropic organizations, civil society
organizations and nongovernmental organizations, private businesses,
and academic institutions.
Given the broad range of determinants that affect and are affected by
health, there are many subcategories within these stakeholder groups that
are engaged in global health partnerships, for example, within national
governments, ministries of health, finance, telecommunications, and
transportation. These numerous stakeholders bring varying strengths
and resources to global health partnerships, but they also carry their
own organizational cultures, regulations, and expectations. Managing
PPPs among these stakeholders is complex and requires intentional and
thoughtful governance.
This workshop will explore the governance of partnerships that are
defined by the following parameters: (1) a clearly defined, shared goal
that centers on meeting the health needs of disadvantaged populations;
(2) the inclusion of at least three partners with a government entity and
business represented among them; (3) development of a formal joint
agreement among the partners with a defined set of rules; (4) contribu-
tions of resources from all partners (resources can include financing,
technical expertise, innovation, personnel, relationships, and research);
and (5) expected value for all partners.

8:00am Registration
8:30am Welcome
C. D. MOTE, JR.
President
National Academy of Engineering
8:35am
Introduction to the Workshop from the Planning
Committee Co-Chairs
CLARION JOHNSON
Private Consultant
ExxonMobil
REGINA RABINOVICH
ExxonMobil Malaria Scholar in Residence
I. Global Health and Governance of

Public–Private Partnerships in the Current Context
This opening session will provide an overview of the current trends
and challenges in the governance of global health public–private partner-
ships (PPPs). The session will begin with a review of the existing literature
on the governance structures, processes, and practices of global health
PPPs. The roles of transparency and accountability will be explored in the
governance of global health PPPs, with a focus on organizational design
and decision making. Governance issues for discussion will include power
dynamics and equity, inclusion and participation in decision making, and
the management of real and perceived conflicts of interest.
Session Moderator: REGINA RABINOVICH
8:50am The Core Roles of Transparency and Accountability in the

Governance of Global Health PPPs
MICHAEL R. REICH
Taro Takemi Research Professor of International Health
Policy

APPENDIX D 103
9:15am Addressing Major Challenges in the Governance of Global

Health PPPs
Panel Discussion
STEVE DAVIS
President and CEO
PATH
MARK DYBUL
Professor of Medicine and Faculty Director
Georgetown University Center for Global Health and Quality
MUHAMMAD PATE
CEO
Big Win Philanthropy
TACHI YAMADA
Venture Partner
Frazier Healthcare Partners
10:15am BREAK
II. Legal Considerations for PPP Governance in Global Health

Through a problem-solving exercise, this session will surface legal
considerations within different sectors when developing global health
PPPs. The discussion will aim to address questions including—What
governance structures, processes, and practices are advisable from a legal
perspective given a myriad of considerations such as leadership, conflicts
of interest, data ownership, publicity, and flexibility in decision making?
How does or should PPP governance emulate private-sector governance?
How does it differ? What are the legal considerations when operating
across countries and international systems? In terms of acknowledging
and valuing resources from all partners, questions include—How are
resources contributed from each partner acknowledged within the gover-
nance document? How is the value of in-kind resources defined? Panelists
will discuss these questions and elaborate on the legal and regulatory
constraints they have encountered and problem-solved for when struc-
turing PPPs.

Session Moderator: LAUREN MARKS

Director, Private-Sector Engagement for PEPFAR
10:30am Panel Discussion
DOUGLAS BROOKS
Senior Director for Community Engagement
Gilead Sciences
ANTHONY BROWN
Senior Legal Counsel
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
KENNETH MILLER
Associate General Counsel
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
NINA NATHANI
Partner
Matalon & Nathani, LLP
VALERIE WENDEROTH
Attorney-Advisor
12:00pm LUNCH
III. Internal Governance of Individual Partners

and Impacts on Approaches to Public–Private Partnerships
The internal governance structures, processes, and practices of indi-
vidual partners impact how they approach and engage in PPPs. Greater
clarity and understanding of the practical, legal, and regulatory con-
straints of individual organizations, which may impact the partnership
and how it is governed, can promote transparency and manage expecta-
tions. Through defined strategies, priorities, and procedures for partner-
ship engagement that reflect their internal governance considerations,
individual organizations can articulate their expectations, needs, and
limitations prior to engagement and throughout the partnership opera-
tions. Developing a partnership strategy not only provides a signal to
other stakeholders and potential partners but also requires organizations
to internally review and assess their own priorities, expectations, and

APPENDIX D 105
resources as they develop their capacity to engage in PPPs. In this inter-

active session, participants will collectively discuss the issue and related
questions posed by the facilitators. The session will be conducted in
two rounds followed by a harvest with the larger group to reflect on the
themes and deeper questions that arose during small group discussions.
Session Facilitators: JO IVEY BOUFFORD

Immediate Past President
The New York Academy of Medicine
KEVIN ETTER
Director
UPS Loaned Executive Program
1:00pm World Café/Small Table Interactive Discussions
IV. Lessons Learned from Development, Iterative Improvement,

and Reform of Public–Private Partnerships and Their Governance
In this session panelists will first illuminate their decision making
when developing and establishing a PPP and its governance structure,
processes, and practices. Panelists will share lessons learned from experi-
ences in determining governance needs and mechanisms based on the
partnership goal; engaging partners and other stakeholders in decision
making for the design of the PPP and its governance; developing the gov-
ernance mechanism; and defining metrics for evaluating the effectiveness
of the PPP and its governance performance.
Subsequently, panelists will delve into the creation of iterative pro-
cesses for the continuous improvement of PPP governance as well as
approaching PPP reform. Using the experiences of their respective part-
nerships, panelists will share lessons learned in decision making when
adjusting to evolving priorities of the PPP to partners and in the broader
global health environment, and related impacts of issues such as expecta-
tions, language, and internal decision-making processes of each partner.
Session Moderator: CLARION JOHNSON
2:00pm Panel Presentations and Discussion
Access Accelerated
DANIELLE ROLLMANN
Access Priorities, Global Policy
Pfizer Inc.

The DREAMS Partnership

LAUREN MARKS
Director, Private-Sector Engagement for PEPFAR
Global Health Innovative Technology Fund

BT SLINGSBY
CEO and Executive Director
Global Health Innovative Technology Fund
ACHAP Partnership in Botswana

JEFFREY L. STURCHIO
Board Member, ACHAP
President and CEO, Rabin Martin
Avahan Program in India

SONAL MEHTA
Chief Executive
Alliance India
3:30pm BREAK
V. Evaluating and Reporting on

Public–Private Partnerships in Global Health
When conducted effectively, evaluating and reporting on the progress
of PPPs on their stated goals and outcomes promotes transparency and
accountability and can guide decision making within the partnership.
Standardizing reporting and making it publicly accessible could more
broadly contribute to decision making in global health. This session will
present an initiative to develop a framework to standardize measure-
ment and reporting across private-sector initiatives to improve access to
noncommunicable disease treatment and care. The presentation will focus
on the decision-making process for the framework’s design and how it is
being applied. Following the presentation, participants will engage in a
discussion on the potential of such frameworks for decision making in the
development and operations of partnerships in global health.
Session Moderator: JOHN MONAHAN

Senior Advisor for Global Health
Georgetown University

APPENDIX D 107
3:45pm Evaluation of Access Accelerated

PETER ROCKERS
Assistant Professor, Global Health
Boston University
VERONIKA WIRTZ
Associate Professor, Global Health
Boston University
VI. Identifying Key Issues in the Governance of

Public–Private Partnerships in Global Health
The objectives of this session are to identify the key issues in the gov-
ernance of global health partnerships, and apply what has been learned
to decision making in the establishment of a new partnership. During the
session, governance issues raised in the earlier sessions will be reviewed,
participants will be guided through a role-playing exercise to apply les-
sons learned from the workshop, and key messages from the workshop
will be identified.
Session Facilitator: CATE O’KANE*

Independent Consultant
4:15pm Report Back from World Café

JO IVEY BOUFFORD
KEVIN ETTER
4:25pm Facilitated Small-Group Activity
5:55pm Closing Remarks

CLARION JOHNSON
REGINA RABINOVICH
6:15pm Adjourn to Informal Reception


Appendix E
References
Bezanson, K. A., and P. Isenman. 2012. Governance of new global partnerships: Challenges, weak-
nessess, lessons. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
Distlerath, L. M., and Guy Macdonald. 2004. The African comprehensive HIV/AIDS part-
nerships-a new role for multinational corporations in global health policy. Yale Journal
of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics 4:147.
Ebrahim, A., J. Battilana, and J. Mair. 2014. The governance of social enterprises: Mission
drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior 34:81–100.
Hilts, P. 2005. Changing minds: Botswana beats back AIDS. In Rx for Survival: Why We Must Rise
to the Global Health Challenge. New York: Penguin Press. Pp. 130–164.
IOG (Institute on Governance). 2017. Defining Governance. https://iog.ca/what-is-governance/
(accessed May 28, 2018).
Kokku, S. B., B. Mahapatra, S. Tucker, N. Saggurti, and P. Prabhakar. 2014. Effect of public–
private partnership in treatment of sexually transmitted infections among female sex
workers in Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian Journal of Medical Research 139(2):285–293.
Ramiah, I., and M. R. Reich. 2005. Public–private partnerships and antiretroviral drugs for
HIV/AIDS: lessons from Botswana. Health Affairs 24(2):545–551.
Ramiah, I., and M. R. Reich. 2006. Building effective public–private partnerships: Experi-
ences and lessons from the African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships (ACHAP).
Social Science & Medicine 63(2):397–408.
Reich, M. R. 2002. Public–private partnerships for public health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rubin, E. 2005. The myth of accountability and the anti-administrative impulse. Michigan
Law Review 103(8):2073–2136.
Stenson, B. 2010. Strengths and weaknesses in the governance of selected global health initiatives.
Washington, DC: Global Partnership for Education.
109


Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health: Proceedings of A Workshop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health: Proceedings of A Workshop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health: Proceedings of A Workshop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25069 SHARE

Exploring Partnership Governance in Global Health:

130 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Rachel M. Taylor and Joe Alper, Rapporteurs

Forum on Public–Private Partnerships for Global Health and Safety

Board on Global Health

Health and Medicine Division

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

This project was supported by Anheuser-Busch InBev; Becton, Dickinson and

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47434-4

Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and ­Medicine. 2018.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences,

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

CLARION JOHNSON (Co-Chair), Private Consultant, ExxonMobil

1 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s planning commit-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FORUM ON PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

JO IVEY BOUFFORD (Co-Chair), Immediate Past President, The New

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ELAINE GIBBONS, Vice President for Global Engagement and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

MARY LOU VALDEZ, Associate Commissioner for International

Health and Medicine Division Staff

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

JO IVEY BOUFFORD, New York University College of Global Public

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

for making certain that an independent examination of this proceedings

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xix

2 GLOBAL HEALTH AND GOVERNANCE OF PUBLIC–

3 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PUBLIC–PRIVATE

4 EXAMINING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Global Health Innovative Technology (GHIT) Fund, 31

5 EVALUATING AND REPORTING ON PUBLIC–PRIVATE

6 IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES IN THE GOVERNANCE OF

A Commissioned Paper: The Core Roles of Transparency and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Box, Figures, and Tables

A-1 Graph of usage of “governance” in Google Books, 1940–2008, 61

4-1 Partnerships Presented at the Workshop on October 26, 2017, 40

A-1 Two-by-Two Table of Low and High Levels of Transparency and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018.

2 GLOBAL HEALTH AND GOVERNANCE OF PUBLIC–

3 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PUBLIC–PRIVATE

4 EXAMINING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE

5 EVALUATING AND REPORTING ON PUBLIC–PRIVATE

6 IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES IN THE GOVERNANCE OF

A Commissioned Paper: The Core Roles of Transparency and

• Partnership Formation, including what determines the need for a part-