To the Editor:

Your story1 on AMFm does not provide a balanced picture of the evidence pertaining to the proposed approach adopted by AMFm and the prevailing development approaches used to combat malaria.

AMFm is an innovative financing mechanism to expand access to affordable artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) for malaria, thereby saving lives and reducing the use of inappropriate treatments. By increasing access to ACTs and displacing artemisinin monotherapies from the market, AMFm also seeks to delay resistance to artemisinin. AMFm aims to enable countries to increase the provision of affordable ACTs through the public, private and nongovernmental organization sectors. Contrary to your report, AMFm's key feature is not “heavily subsidizing the private market”1. In both the public and the private sector, it will subsidize the buyer, rather than the manufacturer, of ACTs through copayments.

You also wrote about “provisions in the scheme that allow subsidies for artemisinin monotherapy” and quoted claims that the pilot subsidies have not proven AMFm's effectiveness1. Your report would have been more balanced if it had specified how much has been spent globally on approaches other than the AMFm and discussed their effectiveness in improving access to ACTs and displacing ineffective drugs from the market.

We welcome critical comments, as they catalyze improvements in planning and implementation, and we especially welcome critiques based on evidence, such as those we have come to enjoy from Nature Medicine.