Global Health Equity

Invented and founded by Tess Fries in 2025, Elixira is a breakthrough patent-pending AI-guided nanomedicine platform designed for autonomous, lifelong cancer prevention. Its feasibility has been independently documented by a leading Contract Research Organization (CRO), and all underlying technologies are scientifically validated. Elixira embodies the world’s first form of preventive nanomedicine, inaugurating a new medical field called Nanoism, which signifies the convergence of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and autonomous energy systems into a self-sustaining paradigm of lifelong, proactive disease prevention.

This paper provides the first comprehensive blueprint for licensing Elixira, defining how preventive nanomedicine can be responsibly deployed worldwide. The framework balances exclusivity and collaboration, integrates diverse deployment pathways, and emphasizes ethical, equitable access. By establishing a transparent roadmap, Elixira’s licensing model not only supports rapid implementation but also ensures sustainability, profitability, and global health equity.
Remember, cancer will remain in the world until someone decides it won’t. Licensing is how we make it happen.

Licensing Preventive Medicine Global Deployment Cancer Prevention Nanobot Biotechnology Intellectual Property Business Model Healthcare Healthcare Access Innovation Technology Transfer Collaboration Models Medtech Deeptech Nanomedicine Life Science Nanotechnology AI-Guided Nanotechnology Autonomous Health Systems Prior Art Public Disclosure Global Health Equity Licensing Roadmap Future of Medicine

Introduction:
Cardiovascular-related diseases, with hypertension as a key precursor, have increased in recent years. Effective management of hypertension improves life expectancy, yet poor medication adherence remains a challenge, contributing to adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs.

Objectives:
This study aimed to determine the association between knowledge and medication adherence, as well as identify factors associated with non-adherence to antihypertensive therapy among adult male patients attending Ashaiman Polyclinic.

Methods:
A facility-based cross-sectional study using a quantitative approach was conducted among 206 adult male clients. Participants were selected through a consecutive sampling technique. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and analyzed with Stata version 16. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals) were computed. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used for bivariate analysis. Variables significant at p < 0.05 were further analyzed using multiple logistic regression to determine adjusted odds ratios (AOR).

Results:
An estimated 64.6% of respondents had adequate knowledge of hypertension, while 41.3% had adequate knowledge of antihypertensive medications. However, knowledge did not significantly translate into medication adherence (p < 0.05). Factors significantly associated with non-adherence included age (AOR = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.194–6.181; p = 0.042), educational level (AOR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.019–5.089; p = 0.028), duration since diagnosis (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.118–7.863; p = 0.019), and history of experiencing medication side effects (AOR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.278–0.822; p = 0.027).

Conclusion:
The study found relatively low levels of adequate knowledge regarding hypertension and antihypertensive medications among adult male patients. This knowledge did not significantly influence medication adherence. Key factors influencing adherence included age, educational level, duration of diagnosis, and past experiences with side effects. The study highlights the importance of strengthening social support systems through caregiver and community education to promote medication adherence among hypertensive patients.

Health equity, defined as the attainment of the highest level of health for all people, remains a fundamental goal of global public health. Despite notable scientific advances and increased attention to structural drivers of health disparities, profound inequities persist both within and between nations. Insights from the CMSS Encoding Equity and CCST Mental Health Conference, as well as the work of Dr. Lisa Cooper and others, offer a comprehensive framework for understanding and advancing health equity through research, community engagement, policy, advocacy, and systems change. Lived Experience and the Long Game of Health Equity Dr. Lisa Cooper's personal and professional trajectory underscores the necessity of integrating lived experiences into health equity work. Drawing parallels between systemic health challenges in Liberia and Baltimore, Dr. Cooper highlights that health equity is both deeply personal and inherently political. She advocates using one's power, whether from positions of privilege or marginalization, to bridge divides and catalyze change. Her research emphasizes that patients from marginalized backgrounds often face reduced rapport with physicians, decreased decision-making involvement, and lower-quality communication, particularly when implicit racial bias is present.

Global immunization programs have been instrumental in reducing morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases, yet disparities persist in coverage due to socioeconomic , cultural, and geographic factors. This journal explores the role of diversity and inclusion in public health immunization efforts, highlighting successes and challenges from global campaigns such as those led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other global health partners. It emphasizes the importance of culturally responsive strategies and inclusive policies that address the unique needs of marginalized populations, and how these approaches can enhance the effectiveness of immunization programs.

Health disparities in low-resource settings persist as a critical challenge, amplifying inequalities in access to healthcare services. Innovative financial mechanisms, including microfinance initiatives, health insurance schemes tailored for impoverished communities, and social impact bonds, have been proposed as effective strategies to mitigate these disparities. This paper explores the role of these mechanisms in reducing health inequities through a concise literature review and empirical analysis. We present evidence from successful case studies and a comparative analysis of different financial models, highlighting their impact on health outcomes in underserved populations. The findings suggest that while these financial tools show promise, their success largely depends on local governance and socioeconomic conditions. The paper concludes with policy recommendations and identifies areas for future research to optimize the impact of these financial innovations.

Breakthroughs in our global fight against cancer have been achieved. However, this progress has been unequal. In low-and middle-income countries and for specific populations in high-income settings, many of these advancements are but an aspiration and hope for the future. This review will focus on health disparities in cancer within and across countries, drawing from examples in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States. Placed in context with these examples, the authors also draw basic recommendations from several initiatives and groups that are working on the issue of global cancer disparities, including the US Institute of Medicine, the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, and the Union for International Cancer Control. From increasing initiatives in basic resources in low-income countries to rapid learning systems in high-income countries, the authors argue that beyond ethics and equity issues, it makes economic sense to invest in global cancer control, especially in low-and middle-income countries.

102 Cornell L. Rev. 1539 (2017)Today, intellectual property (IP) scholars accept that IP as an approach to information production has serious limits. But what lies beyond IP? A new literature on “intellectual production without IP” (or “IP without IP”) has emerged to explore this question, but its examples and explanations have yet to convince skeptics. This Article reorients this new literature via a study of a hard case: a global influenza virus-sharing network that has for decades produced critically important information goods, at significant expense, and in a loose-knit group—all without recourse to IP. I analyze the Network as an example of “open science,” a mode of information production that differs strikingly from conventional IP, and yet that successfully produces important scientific goods in response to social need. The theory and example developed here refute the most powerful criticisms of the emerging “IP without IP” literature, and provide a stronger foundation for t...

In an era of routine air travel and disease multipliers born of human behaviors, a public health crisis anywhere in the world is a potential problem everywhere. Stimson Center Global Health Security Program 3 implementation and compliance. US disease detection and response capabilities rely heavily on state and local public health capacities. Communications between the state and Federal levels and across sectors remains a serious challenge. Despite these perennial challenges, the US is generally assumed to be well within the requirements for IHR (2005) compliance. The outlook is less rosy in other regions. The IHR (2005) framework assumes that countries will build their national public health surveillance and response capacities on the foundations of functional health systems. Many weak states fall short of this prerequisite, and a larger number of low and middle income states face solvable but serious gaps. The onus is on national public health leaders to define how they will implement the regulations, and to find the necessary resources. The IHR (2005) created no formal finance mechanism to support implementation. The scope of capacity-building and the lack of defined metrics present a quandary for donors who are uncertain about what it might mean to help partner nations fund IHR compliance. The global disease detection and response network is only as strong as the weakest link. Article 44 of the revised regulations encourages states to collaborate "to the extent possible" in detecting and responding to health crises, and in sharing technical, logistical, financial, and legal support to help other states implement the IHR (2005). As the largest bilateral donor of health assistance, US leadership and responsibilities in this area are preeminent. The US recently initiated a more robust dialogue among states at various levels of economic development, with the ultimate goal of cultivating IHR (2005) capacity-building partnerships. Aligning local public health and global biosecurity priorities Many countries have begun to invest in strong health systems at home and abroad. Reliable public health surveillance lies at the foundation of efficient health systems, and at the core of the IHR (2005). The IHR framework offers the global health community a template for cooperative capacity-building efforts that build local capabilities for evidence-based health policies and reinforce measures to prevent naturally, accidentally, or deliberate released infections from spreading internationally. This is no guarantee of long-term success. The IHR directly touch on politically charged issues from individual rights to state sovereignty. The legal mandate of the revised regulations may be a tool to empower health ministers within their own governments, but can also be perceived as an unfunded mandate on nations with other health priorities. Building the necessary capacities will require sustained commitment from national leaders inside and beyond the health sector, as well as consistent funding over the long-term. US agencies-even those that have engaged in capacity-building for decades-will require new strategies to measure progress in building global disease detection and response capabilities. This includes a whole-of-government assistance strategy that breaks down programmatic silos among security, science, and health actors. Stimson Center Global Health Security Program 4 Flexible, evidence-based responses adapted to nature of threat Communications Nations identify appropriate authorities on an ad hoc basis Notifications to and from WHO via designated IHR National Focal Points National capacity requirements Public health and infection control measures at ports of entry Capability to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health threats in near-real time at national and community level Risk assessment: WHO may declare any natural, accidental, or deliberate event a "public health emergency of international concern" (PHEIC) if it has the potential to affect health across national borders. This includes events of any origin, whether biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear or other disasters.

As digital technologies play a growing role in healthcare, human-centered design is gaining traction in global health. Amid concern that this trend offers little more than buzzwords, our paper clarifies how humancentered design matters for global health equity. First, we contextualize how the design discipline differs from conventional approaches to research and innovation in global health, by emphasizing craft skills and iterative methods that reframe the relationship between design and implementation. Second, while there is no definitive agreement about what the 'human' part means, it often implies stakeholder participation, augmenting human skills, and attention to human values. Finally, we consider the practical relevance of human-centered design by reflecting on our experiences accompanying health workers through over seventy digital health initiatives. In light of this material, we describe humancentered design as a flexible yet disciplined approach to innovation that prioritizes people's needs and concrete experiences in the design of complex systems.

This essay discusses the world of federally funded intellectual property (IP) before and after the Bayh-Dole Act and its impact on the world of science and commerce, before then exploring the complicated debates over ownership of the science behind the life-saving COVID-19 vaccines that will bring normalcy back to the world. Before 1980, federally funded science in the U.S. was largely focused on meeting the Cold War national defense needs of a nation in a science and technology race with the Soviet Union. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act initiated in earnest the recognition that the advancement of national ecosystems of science was also vital for global economic competitiveness. The act allowed university generated IP with federal grants to be owned and licensed by universities for commercial purposes. Before, the federal government retained ownership of IP. The result was a transformation in how universities researchers viewed the research and IP they generated, leading to start-up companies and supporting a revolution in biotech and other emerging areas of science. Although many research-intensive universities already had technology transfer offices, these now proliferated. Universities generated policies on IP ownership, including a policy in which any profits resulting from patents and licenses are shared between the researcher, the department or school they belong to, and the university. Universities and other nonprofits were also required to reinvest Bayh–Dole patent revenues in science research and education, generating substantial resources to new research projects. But the success of the Bayh-Dole Act, and the discoveries it helped generate, also contributed to an increasingly complicated world of IP ownership. The act and similar legislation, as well as federal funding, contributed to the foundational science that led to the variety of COVID-19 vaccines. Its provisions also raise questions about the role, and ownership, of federally funded research that made the vaccine possible. The new Biden administration has put a priority on production and distribution of COVID vaccines, but it may later attempt to control the price and profits of pharmaceutical companies under the “march-in” rights reserved to the federal government. At the same time, the emergence of “vaccine nationalism,” in which nations and drug makers prioritize control of IP and production of vaccines for their own population, is testing the ability of the world to effectively respond to the virus as it mutates. In the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, the strengths and weaknesses of the IP world set out by the Bayh-Dole Act will be debated and focused on two questions: who profited from the pandemic and at what global public expense?

In early 2007, the Indonesian government made a controversial decision to withhold its H5N1 avian flu virus samples from World Health Organisation Collaborating Centres pending a new global mechanism for virus sharing that had better terms for developing countries. In doing so, it helped to reframe the discourse on international health cooperation and " global health citizenship " in relation to infectious diseases of pandemic potential. The 60 th World Health Assembly in May 2007 resolved that the global alert and response system for pandemic influenza should go beyond the obligations and responsibilities of member states in infectious diseases surveillance, reporting of disease outbreaks, and sharing of viral isolates and information as its principal terms of reference. The sharing of other benefits from this global alert and response system, such as equitable access to affordable vaccines developed from these viral source materials, is now prominently on the agenda of global health diplomacy. Based on documentary sources and a re-reading of published materials, this paper argues that global infectious disease surveillance has largely catered to the priorities of developed countries, with little consideration for how the duties and obligations of these regimes might accord with the health priorities and needs of developing countries. In the absence of reciprocal benefits, the International Health Regulations (2005) for instance, which impose mandatory disease reporting obligations on signatory member states, could reduce poorer front-line states to the role of pandemic " canaries " in an early warning system for emergent flu pandemics. This report was the fruit of an 18-month study undertaken by a multidisciplinary committee jointly chaired by the eminent microbiologists Joshua Lederberg (Nobel laureate in medicine or physiology, 1958) and Robert Shope. Notwithstanding its title, it was quite clear that these national concerns over emergent and re-emergent infectious diseases in an affluent country would inevitably take on an international dimension.

In early 2007, the Indonesian government decided to withhold its bird fl u virus samples from WHO’s collaborating centres pending a new global mechanism for virus sharing that had better terms for developing countries. Th e 60th World Health Assembly subsequently resolved to establish an international stockpile of avian fl u vaccines, and mandated WHO to formulate mechanisms and guidelines for equitable access to these vaccines. Are there analogous opportunities for study volunteers or donors of biological materials in clinical trials or other research settings to exercise corresponding leverage to advance health equity?

Vaccines are hugely important tools in minimising the effect pandemic influenza could have on a population. The reforms introduced by the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework are ill-suited to providing sufficient levels of access to vaccines to meet the needs of developing states, and as such developing states will continue to be reliant upon the traditional methods of vaccine procurement to procure the majority of the vaccines they required. Using procurement during 2009-H1N1 as a case study, this paper examines the methods of procurement utilised by states in order to determine if the procurement tools available to developing states are sufficient to procure adequate levels of pandemic influenza vaccines. Particular focus is given to the role Advance Purchase Agreements (APAs) play in the procurement process. By exploring this case study it is possible to argue that these procurement methods are ineffective for developing states, and when the next influenza pandemic occurs, demand will once again outstrip supply globally, due to supply of vaccines being dominated by the developed states with APAs in place.