The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
February 28, 2025
Quarterly Article
Kristina Jenei
June 2024
The Future of Population Health
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML) aims to help countries select medicines based on the priority needs of their populations. However, rapid evolution within the pharmaceutical sector toward complex, high-priced medicines has challenged WHO decision making, leading to inconsistent decisions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how political factors impact the WHO EML.
Methods: Document review and semistructured interviews of diverse stakeholder groups with direct experience with the WHO EML, either as stakeholders involved with WHO EML processes (e.g., selection of medicines, observers) or external applications (n = 29). Donabedian’s structure–process–outcome framework was combined with the Three I’s framework (ideas, interests, and institutions) to understand how political factors shape the WHO EML.
Findings: The concept of essential medicines evolved from an original focus on generic medicines in resource-constrained countries to include complex, high-priced therapeutics also relevant to high-income nations. The WHO has never explicitly addressed whom its decisions are for. Some believe the Model Lists have a “symbolic” price-lowering mechanism, whereas others do not (e.g., the pharmaceutical industry concerns to profitability). This tension has led to different ideas and interests driving the EML. A lack of data and human resources inhibits evaluation and exacerbates the influence of external actors. A degree of inconsistency has emerged in the concept and recommendations of essential medicines.
Conclusions: The current debate about the role of the WHO EML centers on the question whether the Model Lists ought to include complex, high-priced medicines. However, this research demonstrates that challenges may have roots deeper than amending decision criteria. At the core of this issue is the role of the list. Defining a strategic vision for the WHO EML, refining decision criteria, and increasing institutional support would align interests, good processes, and, ultimately, contribute to positive societal health outcomes.
