outcomes (e.g., chronic use of antibiotics that contribute to the emergence of resistant strains of bacteria or the malaria parasite). And this happens in developed and developing countries alike. Take the case of the US: studies show that financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and doctors (e.g., free trips and fees paid to attend conferences) can influence the practice of medicine as well as research results (Archives of Internal Medicine, May 11, 2009 & April 26, 2010). I think that the discussion should go beyond the "public vs. private" dichotomy, as what I am proposing in my blog can be delivered equally through public or private channels. But in either channel, systems and tools need to be in place for the appropriate selection, procurement, distribution, prescription and use of medicines. Incentives are important, but well run systems in either public or private channels are critical to deliver the correct medicine to the patient that needs it. Patricio: Exactly! By making medicines "free" you actually exacerbate the problem of unnecessary treatment that could harm future populations. You may also be interested in a paper showing that increasing the price of ACTs for malaria decreased their unnecessary use ( http://www.stanford.edu/~pdupas/cohendup\\... ). Where we don't agree is that we need central channels of selection, procurement, distribution and prescription. We would welcome clear evidence to the effect that such centralization delivers better care. Given ongoing south-south learning exchanges that are taking place between some of the African and Latin American countries, particularly with Brazil,