Thieves Hijacking Malaria Drugs in Africa

The Wall Street Journal posted an article today called "Thieves Hijacking Malaria Drugs in Africa."

Why is this important to the United States? Sure, there's the humanitarian cause: thieves stealing important health care from Africans who need it is an atrocity. But at one person pointed out in the article, as long as the citizens are getting it, who cares?

Why this matters to us is because of the cost involved. We spend millions, billions giving aid to these countries. For it to 'go missing' and be sold on the black market can hurt us as well as the people. Plus, another interviewee said that if the medications aren't properly cared for, they can be rendered useless, or can become less effective, allowing malaria to adapt to the weakened cure and mutate.

The WSJ article gave good background information on how many malaria kills and why it is important to be giving Africa aid on this matter. They also did a good job detailing how much of the medication is diverted: “Angola's health minister, Jose Van-Dunem, says that "maybe 15%" of donated malaria drugs are stolen annually. According to a person familiar with the U.S. investigation, more than 20% of donor-funded Coartem in Africa may be diverted each year—with a street value of about $60 million.”

The article goes on to mention that the trafficking is taking place in some of the most corrupt countries in the world, rating them on a scale out of 174. My question is this: who came up with the scale, and how is it used? What do they base the numbers on? I wasn’t aware that there was a scale of corruption, though I’m not surprised.

I think the most interesting part of the article is this:

“Spot purchases by The Wall Street Journal, made with the knowledge of local authorities, confirm that theft is a problem with donated malaria medicines. In Angola earlier this year, the Journal bought dozens of packets of Coartem at street markets. An analysis of the drugs carried out by Novartis showed that the majority had originally been donated by PMI or the Global Fund and were intended for distribution inside Tanzania only. Some other packets were found to be counterfeit. Only one sample out of the dozens bought by the Journal at Angolan markets was legitimate—neither fake nor stolen.”

That’s investigative reporting.

Not only does the journalist mention background about the issue, gives data to back up the facts, and quotes people who are knowledgeable about the information (and though one person refuses to be named, in this case the journalist almost makes it clear though inference that we can understand why they remain anonymous), but they took the time to go to Africa to try practical application. I would love to know more about the situation under which they were purchased. Was it obvious that the buyer wasn’t in need of the medication? Maybe that altered the results of their purchase. I also like that the journalist lets the audience know how the US is handling the situation as much as possible.