Health Care
Paragraphs

Development assistance from high-income countries to the health sectors of low- and middle-income countries (health aid) is an important source of funding for health in low- and middle-income countries. However, the relationship between health aid and the expected health improvements from those expenditures—the cost-effectiveness of targeted interventions—remains unknown. We reviewed the literature for cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting five disease categories: HIV; malaria; tuberculosis; noncommunicable diseases; and maternal, newborn, and child health. We measured the alignment between health aid and cost-effectiveness, and we examined the possibility of better alignment by simulating health aid reallocation. The relationship between health aid and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios is negative and significant: More health aid is going to disease categories with more cost-effective interventions. Changing the allocation of health aid earmarked funding could lead to greater health gains even without expanding overall disbursements. The greatest improvements in the alignment would be achieved by reallocating some aid from HIV or maternal, newborn, and child health to malaria or TB. We conclude that health aid is generally aligned with cost-effectiveness considerations, but in some countries this alignment could be improved.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Health Affairs
Authors
Eran Bendavid
Number
7
Paragraphs

David Studdert and colleagues explore how to balance public health, individual freedom, and good government when it comes to sugar-sweetened drinks. Over the last decade, many national, state, and local governments have introduced laws aimed at curbing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), especially by children. The main regulatory approaches are taxes, restrictions on the availability of SSBs in schools, restrictions on advertising and marketing, labeling requirements, and government procurement and benefits standards. Efforts to regulate in this area often encounter stiff opposition, including claims that the laws are inequitable, do not achieve their goals, and have negative economic effects. Several lessons can be drawn from the international experience with SSB regulation to date, which may inform future design and implementation of legal interventions to combat noncommunicable disease.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
PLOs
Authors
David Studdert
Michelle Mello
Number
7
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

 

“I am the first child of my parents. I have a small brother at home. If the first child were a son, my parents might be happy ... but I am a daughter. I complete all the household tasks, go to school, again do the household activities in the evening … my parents do not give value or recognition to me.”

 

Stanford Assistant Professor of Medicine Marcella Alsan often refers to this comment by a 15-year-old girl from Nepal when she talks about how the division of labor among men and women starts at a young age in the developing world.

“Anecdotally, girls must sacrifice their education to help out with domestic tasks, including taking care of children, a job that becomes more onerous if their younger siblings are ill,” said, Alsan, a core faculty member at the Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (CHP/PCOR) within the Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies, and the Department of Medicine.

More than 100 million girls worldwide fail to complete secondary school, despite research that shows a mother’s literacy is the most robust predictor of child survival. So Alsan is analyzing whether medical interventions in children under 5 tend to lead their older sisters back to school.

She is one of two winners of this year’s Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries, awarded by CHP/PCOR to promising young Stanford researchers.

Her Stanford Department of Medicine colleague, Jason Andrews, is the other recipient of the $100,000 prize given to young Stanford researchers to investigate ways to improve access to health care in developing countries.

Andrews is looking at cheap, effective diagnostic tools for infectious diseases, while Alsan is researching how older girls in poorer countries are impacted by the health of their younger siblings.

“My proposed work lays the foundation for a more comprehensive understanding of how illness in households and early child health interventions impact a critical determinant of human development: an older girl’s education,” she said.

Image

Alsan, the only infectious-disease trained economist in the United States, said Stanford is the ideal place to carry out her interdisciplinary global health research.

“I am humbled and honored to receive this prize, since Dr. Rosenkranz has done so much for women’s health worldwide,” she said.

Alsan – an MD with a specialty in infectious disease who has a PhD in economics from Harvard – said she intends to estimate the impact that illnesses in under-5 children have on older girls’ schooling using econometric tools.

She will compile data from more than 100 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) covering nearly 4 million children living in low- and middle-income countries.

The surveys ask about episodes of diarrhea, pneumonia and fever in children under 5 and record data on literacy and school enrollment for every child in the household.

Alsan also intends to collaborate with partners in sub-Saharan Africa to study the gendered effect of household illness on time use, using culturally appropriate questionnaires.

Douglas K. Owens, a Stanford professor of medicine and director of CHP/PCOR, called Alsan’s work “groundbreaking.”

“Although training is critical, more importantly, her work to date shows a degree of innovation, creativity and rigor that led us to conclude she was likely to become one of the top investigators in her field worldwide,” he said.

Low-Cost Diagnostic Tools

Andrews, also an assistant professor of medicine, has been working on ways to bring low-cost diagnostic tools to impoverished communities that bear the brunt of disability and death from infectious disease.

“I began working in rural Nepal as an undergraduate student and as a medical student founded a nonprofit organization that provides free medical services in one of the most remote and impoverished parts of the country,” Andrews said. “As I became a primary physician, and then an infectious diseases specialist, one of the consistent and critical challenges I encountered in this setting was routine diagnosis of infectious disease.”

He said those routine diagnostics were typically hindered by lack of electricity, limited laboratory infrastructure and lack of trained lab personnel.

“In my experiences working throughout rural Nepal – and in India, South Africa, Brazil, Peru and Ethiopia – I found these challenges to be common across rural resource-limited settings,” said Andrews, who founded a nonprofit Nyaya Health – recently renamed Possible Health – which provides modern, low-cost healthcare to rural Nepal.

Andrews has been collaborating with engineers to develop an electricity-free, culture-based incubation and identification system for typhoid; low-cost portable microscopes to detect parasitic worm infections; and most recently an easy-to-use molecular diagnostic tool that does not require electricity.

“The motivation for these projects was not to develop fundamentally new diagnostic approaches, but rather to find simple, low-cost means to make established laboratory techniques affordable and accessible,” he said.

Image
The Rosenkranz Prize will allow him to continue to develop a simple, rapid, molecular diagnostic for cholera that is 10 times more sensitive than the tests that are currently available. The diagnostic tool uses paper for DNA extraction, in contrast to traditional approaches that rely on expensive instruments requiring electricity and maintenance.

“We then perform isothermal amplification heated by a reusable, solar-heated, phase-change material,” Andrews said, adding that the entire process is completed in less than 20 minutes and can be performed by anyone with minimal training.

Andrews will enroll 250 patients with suspected cases of cholera in Nepal, using the new diagnostic tools and adapting as many local supplies as possible.

Andrews also intends to establish and curate a website to gather open-source ideas and evidence on diagnostic techniques for use in the developing world.

“Stanford is one of the world’s greatest hubs for innovation and information sharing as pertains to science and technology and is an ideal home for this venture,” he said.

In the current scientific climate, most National Institutes of Health grants go to established researchers. The Rosenkranz Prize aims to stimulate the work of Stanford’s bright young stars – researchers who have the desire to improve health care in the developing world, but lack the resources.

The award’s namesake, George Rosenkranz, first synthesized cortisone in 1951, and later progestin, the active ingredient in oral birth control pills. He went on to establish the Mexican National Institute for Genomic Medicine, and his family created the Rosenkranz Prize in 2009.

The award embodies Dr. Rosenkranz’s belief that young scientists hold the curiosity and drive necessary to find alternative solutions to longstanding health-care dilemmas.

“As in past years, the competition was extremely tough,” said Grant Miller, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute and associate professor of medicine who chaired the prize committee this year.

“It’s exciting to see all of the truly innovative global health research being done by junior scholars at Stanford,” he said. “Both Jason and Marcella really exemplify this – and the legacy of George Rosenkranz.”

Image

 

Hero Image
african girls study
All News button
1
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Maria Polyakova, an assistant professor of health research and policy at the Stanford School of Medicine, is this year’s recipient of the Ernst-Meyer Prize, which recognizes original research about risk and health insurance economics.

Polyakova, who wrote her thesis, “Regulation of Public Health Insurance,” while working on her Ph.D. in economics at MIT, was given the award by The Geneva Association, an international insurance economics think tank based in Switzerland.

Image
Christophe Courbage, research director of the health and aging and insurance economics programs at the association, made the announcement Tuesday. He called Polyakova’s work “an important and insightful thesis on a set of first order – but understudied – issues in insurance: namely the regulation of privately provided social insurance.”

Courbage said the topic not only had considerable academic interest, but also was “an important public policy issue in both the United States and Europe.

“This work makes extremely useful insights about an important area of public policy that has yet to get the attention it needs: the interaction of regulation with important demand and supply-side features of private insurance markets.”

Polyakova said she was honored to receive the award and thanked her thesis committee for their “unbounded support” of her work.

“I am especially grateful to Amy Finkelstein for inspiring my interest in social insurance in general, and health insurance, in particular,” she said. “I hope to continue my work in this area."

A summary of Polyakova’s thesis will be published in the July 2015 issue of The Geneva Association’s Insurance Economics newsletter.

 

 

Hero Image
maria polyakova Stanford School of Medicine
All News button
1
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

 

Stanford School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor told a distinguished group of visiting physicians, engineers, economists and businessmen from India that it was the perfect time to be collaborating with the world’s largest democracy.

As India’s economy heats up once again and biomedical research scales across the South Asian nation, Stanford intends to remain a key partner in this growth.

“India is on a journey to overcome its challenges,” Minor said. “Despite the substantial gaps in healthcare infrastructure and a shortfall of skilled healthcare workers, there’s enormous opportunity and enormously good work going on today – most of it being done by the people in this room.”

Minor was addressing a healthcare and policy panel during the two-day held on the Stanford campus on May 28-29. Reigniting India’s Growth: Perspectives from Business, Engineering, Medicine and Economics was sponsored by the Stanford Center for International Development, the Graduate School of Business, the schools of Engineering and Medicine, as well as the Office of the Vice Provost and Dean of Research.

Image

“I’m really eager to explore ways that we can deepen the collaboration and interactions between Stanford and India,” Minor said. “As I’m sure everyone here is aware, India is the world’s most populous democracy, one of the fastest growing major economies and a rising power with growing international influence – led by a prime minister who has great ambitions for the country.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said his core mission is the revival of the Indian economy – once a powerhouse destined to rival that of China. Since taking office last year, when economic growth stood at 5 percent, the IMF forecasts India’s economy will grow to 7.5 percent by the end of this year.

Stanford has many partnerships with India, such as the Stanford-India Biodesign project to train the next generation of medical technology innovators in India. In 2007, Stanford joined with the nonprofit GVK Emergency Management Research Institute, based in Hyderabad, India, to train the country’s first corps of paramedics.

Minor noted that the Stanford-India Biodesign program has led to the founding of 37 biotech companies. “And the technologies that they have invented have been used in the care of over 300,000 patients – and that’s only the beginning,” he said.

Stanford physicians developed an educational curriculum and have trained thousands of paramedics and emergency instructors in India. EMRI says that since the training program began, more than 150,000 healthcare professions have been trained at its training center.

“These paramedics instructors have played a crucial role in the development of emergency medicine in India,” he said. “It’s been a true collaboration with a curriculum developed here in the U.S. and then standardized and implemented in a way that’s meaningful for people in India.”

Grant Miller, an associate professor at the School of Medicine and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, is the director of the Stanford Center for International Development, which organized and co-hosted the India conference.

Image
“This year’s India Conference was new for SCID in that it was a cross-campus collaboration, partnering us with the business school and schools of medicine and engineering,” said Miller, also a core faculty member at CHP/PCOR.

“We feel that there is great potential for more campus-wide activity focused on India, enabling Stanford to develop new partnerships in India as well as across parts of our own university.”

Miller also launched the Stanford India Health Policy Initiative with another CHP/PCOR researcher, Nomita Divi. The initiative, connected with FSI’s International Policy Implementation Lab, joins Stanford with Indian health policymakers and professionals to design collaborative projects in India.

Last year the SIHPI fellows spent the summer investigating the factors that motivate formal and informal healthcare providers. This summer, three Stanford undergrads and a medical student will do fieldwork on the outskirts of Mumbai for seven weeks to document the impact of existing pharmaceutical networks on formal and informal provider practices.

“Health improvement is of course a critical objective of broad-based social and economic development, and we are very excited to see Stanford’s potential to make interdisciplinary contributions to health improvement in India,” Miller said on the sidelines of the India conference.

The conference featured four panel sessions in which perspectives from economics, business, engineering and medical sectors were debated. Discussions focused on how best to combine these to ensure sustained high growth in the Indian economy.

Each session featured a distinguished panel of speakers, and was followed by a lengthy floor discussion. Among the speakers were Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys, one of India’s most successful IT services companies; Stanford President John Hennessy; Montek Ahluwalia, former deputy chairman of India’s Planning Commission, and Mr. K. Ram Shriram, managing partner at the venture capital firm, Sherpalo Ventures.

Ashok Alexander, former founding country director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in India, said too many India observers tout the incredible growth of its economy and highly educated and skilled technology innovators. Yet they ignore the majority of the country’s 1.2 billion people still lack adequate public healthcare and that 70 percent of medical spending comes out of pocket.

Image

 

“We cannot ignite India nor can we sustain India unless we think about the ways to fix public health problems,” Alexander said. “The solution to most public health problems in India are absurdly simple; it’s all about scaling up of well-known solutions.”

Only 1.3 percent of India’s GDP was devoted to public health in 2014, according to the World Bank. That is one of the world’s lowest rates. The risk of dying during childbirth is one in 43, whereas the rate in developed countries is one in 4,000.

“While India is making such great strides in its energy and business sectors, how come there is no great debate on public health?” he asked.

Amit Sengupta, a senior biomedical consultant at Tata Memorial Center and adjunct professor at ITT/AIIMS in New Delhi, told the medical panel that modern medicine is still not the first preference in rural Indian and the urban slums.

“Health is not only a biomedical issue, but also sociocultural issue,” he said. “Fifty percent of the world’s tribal population lives in India; it’s a rich heritage but they eschew Western medicine.”

Sengupta said rural India is plagued by physical and psychological stress, alcoholism and domestic violence. Meanwhile, he said, the government continues to cut the healthcare budget – a cycle that always leads back to poverty.

And, he said, remember Gandhi’s memorable saying: “Poverty is the worst form of violence.”

Hero Image
India health care The Gates Foundation
All News button
1
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Pregnant women with a recent diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder were 35 percent more likely to deliver a premature baby than were other pregnant women, a study of more than 16,000 births found.

Pregnant women with post-traumatic stress disorder are at increased risk of giving birth prematurely, a new study from the Stanford University School of Medicine and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has found.

The study, which examined more than 16,000 births to female veterans, is the largest ever to evaluate connections between PTSD and preterm birth.

Having PTSD in the year before delivery increased a woman’s risk of spontaneous premature delivery by 35 percent, the research showed. The results were published online Nov. 6 in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“This study gives us a convincing epidemiological basis to say that, yes, PTSD is a risk factor for preterm delivery,” said the study’s senior author, Ciaran Phibbs, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics and an investigator at the March of Dimes Prematurity Research Center at Stanford University. “Mothers with PTSD should be treated as having high-risk pregnancies.”

Spontaneous preterm births, in which the mother goes into labor and delivers more than three weeks early, account for about six deliveries per 100 in the general population. This means that the risk imposed by PTSD translates into a total of about two additional premature babies for every 100 births. In total, about 12 babies per 100 arrive prematurely; some are born early because of medical problems for the mother or baby, rather than because of spontaneous labor.

A piece of the prematurity puzzle

“Spontaneous preterm labor has been an intractable problem,” said Phibbs, noting that rates of spontaneous early labor have barely budged in the last 50 years. “Before we can come up with ways to prevent it, we need to have a better understanding of what the causes are. This is one piece of the puzzle.”

Doctors want to prevent prematurity because of its serious consequences. Premature babies often need long hospitalizations after birth. They are more likely than full-term babies to die in infancy. Many of those who survive face lasting developmental delays or long-term impairments to their eyesight, hearing, breathing or digestive function.

Phibbs’ team analyzed all deliveries covered by the Veterans Health Administration from 2000 to 2012, a total of 16,344 births. They found that 3,049 infants were born to women with PTSD diagnoses. Of these, 1,921 births were to women with “active” PTSD, meaning the condition was diagnosed in the year prior to giving birth, a time frame that the researchers thought could plausibly affect pregnancy.

The researchers examined the effects of several possible confounding factors. Being older, being African-American or carrying twins all increased the risk of giving birth prematurely, as extensive prior research has shown.

The researchers also looked at the effects of maternal health problems (high blood pressure, diabetes and asthma); possible sources of trauma (deployment and military sexual trauma); mental health disorders other than PTSD; drug or alcohol abuse; and tobacco dependence. However, these factors had little influence on risk for premature birth.

The effect of stress

In other words, although pregnant women with PTSD may have other health problems or behave in risky ways, it’s the PTSD that counts for triggering labor early.

“The mechanism is biologic,” Phibbs said. “Stress is setting off biologic pathways that are inducing preterm labor. It’s not the other psychiatric conditions or risky behaviors that are driving it.”

Stress is setting off biologic pathways that are inducing preterm labor.

However, if a woman had been diagnosed with PTSD in the past but had not experienced the disorder in the year before giving birth, her risk of delivering early was no higher than it was for women without PTSD. “This makes us hopeful that if you treat a mom who has active PTSD early in her pregnancy, her stress level could be reduced, and the risk of giving birth prematurely might go down,” said Phibbs, adding that the idea needs to be tested.

Although PTSD is more common in military veterans than the general population, a fairly substantial number of civilian women also experience PTSD, Phibbs noted. “It’s not unique to the VA or to combat,” he said, noting that half of the women in the study who had PTSD had never been deployed to a combat zone. “This is relevant to all of obstetrics.”

The VA has already incorporated the study’s findings into care for pregnant women by instructing each VA medical center to treat pregnancies among women with recent PTSD as high-risk. And Phibbs’ team is now investigating whether PTSD may also contribute to the risk of the mother or baby being diagnosed with a condition that causes doctors to recommend early delivery for health reasons.

The lead author of the study is Jonathan Shaw, MD, instructor in medicine at Stanford. The other co-authors are Steven Asch, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford and chief of health services research for the VA Palo Alto Health Care System; Rachel Kimerling, PhD, psychologist at VAPAHCS; Susan Frayne, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford and staff physician at VAPAHCS; and Kate Shaw, MD, clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford.

The research was supported by the VA Office of Academic Affairs and Health Services Research & Development and by VA Women’s Health Services.

Stanford’s Department of Pediatrics also supported this research.

 

Hero Image
image img  320 high
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Abstract:  How does teamwork increase productivity? Considering teamwork as joint monitoring and management, I investigate this question by studying the same emergency physicians working in two organizational systems differing in the team-management of work: Physicians are assigned patients in a "nurse-managed" system but divide patients between themselves in a "self-managed" system. The self-managed system increases throughput productivity by reducing a "foot-dragging" moral hazard, in which physicians prolong patient stays with expected future work. I find evidence that physicians in the same location have better information about each other and that, in the self-managed system, they use this information to assign patients. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Journal of Political Economy
Authors
Number
3
-

Abstract:

The United States spends over 17 percent of GDP on health care; the next six highest countries spend over 11 percent. This six percent differential indicates an excess spending of approximately one trillion dollars per year. Depending on the benefit from the extra spending, this suggests the possibility of a huge misallocation of resources. Also, because the federal government funds almost half of total health care spending, there are significant effects on the deficit and the debt. The main reasons for the excess are (1) the U.S. pays higher prices for drugs, devices, and equipment and higher fees to specialists and sub-specialists; (2) higher administrative costs; and (3) a more expensive mix of medical care. The seminar will focus on institutional and political explanations for the three proximate reasons.

 

Speaker Bio:

Victor R. Fuchs is the Henry J. Kaiser Jr Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, in the Departments of Economics and Health Research and Policy.  He is also a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a Senior Fellow at SIEPR.  He applies economic analysis to social problems of national concern, with special emphasis on health and medical care.  He is author of nine books, the editor of six others, and has published over two hundred papers and shorter pieces.  His current research focuses on male-female differences in mortality, reform of medical education, and the future of U.S. health care.

His best known work, Who Shall Live?  Health, Economics, and Social Choice (1974; expanded edition 1998, 2nd expanded edition 2011), helps health professionals and policy makers to understand the economic and policy problems in health that have emerged in recent decades.  Other books include The Service Economy (1968), How We Live (1983), The Health Economy (1986), Women’s Quest For Economic Equality (1988), and The Future of Health Policy (1993).  He is the editor of Individual and Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care, and Long-term Care in America (1996).

Professor Fuchs was elected president of the American Economic Association in 1995.  He has also been elected to the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and is an Honorary Member of Alpha Omega Alpha.  He has received the John R. Commons Award, Emily Mumford Medal for Distinguished Contributions to Social Science in Medicine, Distinguished Investigator Award (Association for Health Services Research), Baxter Foundation Health Services Research Prize, and Madden Distinguished Alumni Award (New York University).  ASHE’s (American Society of Health Economists) Career Award for Lifetime Contributions to the Field of Health Economics and the RAND Corporation prize for the Best Paper published in the Forum for Health Economics and Policy are named and awarded in honor of Professor Fuchs.

This event is sponsored by the Stanford Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and the Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research.

 

CISAC Conference Room

Victor Fuchs the Henry J. Kaiser Jr Professor Emeritus Speaker Stanford University
Seminars
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Millions of women in India give birth at home, where they don’t have easy access to medical help if things go wrong. And things go wrong often. The country has one of the world’s highest rates of maternal and neonatal deaths.

To curb this problem, the government pays eligible pregnant women to deliver their babies in an accredited medical facility. With both a financial incentive and the promise of a safer childbirth, it would stand to reason that most Indian women should choose to deliver their babies in a hospital.

But that’s not the case.

Most babies are still born in homes. Early numbers from the financial incentive programs show less than half of eligible women are choosing to participate.

Stanford researchers Grant Miller and Nomita Divi think the answer to this quandary—and so many other well-intentioned policies that fall short—needs to first be considered from the perspective of patients, doctors and other health care providers. And that, they say, is a different approach than most health interventions take.

Miller and Divi are spearheading the Stanford India Health Policy Initiative, a program that seeks to rethink health interventions based on Indian health care users’ and providers’ motivations for seeking care. And to get there, the initiative’s focus comes from the people who confront these problems every day.

The program, which is connected to the International Policy Implementation Lab at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, first brings together community leaders for an in-depth discussion of where best to focus efforts. Next, teams (including students) take these recommendations and spend several months conducting fieldwork to understand health care decision-making, both from the side of patients and providers.  From this foundation, the initiative produces reports detailing the behavioral motivations for why certain dimensions of health care are or are not working.

“To really understand why health policies succeed or fail, you have to see the world through the eyes of the providers and patients,” said Miller, an associate professor of medicine and a core faculty member of FSI’s Center for Health Policy and Primary Care Outcome Research. “A lot of programs are created because they seem logical from the outside. But if you don't understand a patient’s priorities or motives, your program may not work.”

Miller and Divi first applied this approach to the very issue of childbirth in India. Why weren’t more women giving birth in hospitals when there were seemingly logical reasons to do so?

Over the summer, Miller, Divi, their Indian partners, and Stanford graduate and medical students set out to answer this question. During seven weeks of field interviews and subsequent analysis, the students—with guidance from Miller and Divi —identified reasons for why Indian women weren’t accepting a stipend to have their babies in the hospital. Some of these reasons included hidden costs of delivering a baby (like the transportation cost to the hospital or unexpected medical expenses), pressure from mothers-in-law to follow tradition and deliver at home, and fear of unwanted medical procedures like Caesarean sections or sterilization.

This understanding of why patients and providers don’t always make seemingly logical health care decisions is exactly what the India Health Policy Initiative is after.

“So much academic research is driven by donors or journal articles that we read,” Miller said. “So it seemed like we were starting from the wrong place in identifying health policy challenges that we should work on.”

In January, Miller and Divi convened a group of Indian health policy leaders, health care workers, academics and entrepreneurs to understand the challenges they faced in their daily work, and what health care questions they would most like to know more about. From this two-day meeting, the group identified two focus areas for the India Health Policy Initiative over the coming year: understanding more deeply the motivations and activities of both formal and informal health care providers, and what Indians value about care from the informal sector. These informal providers are often doctors or nurses with little or no medical training that are used by many low-income Indians.

To help answer these questions and provide opportunities for students, the Stanford India Health Policy Initiative engages top students from across the university. “We want to provide our students with an experience that will hopefully shape the way they think in their future careers,” said Divi, the initiative's project manager. “And we try to achieve this by training our students to help make sense of urgent health delivery challenges, immersing them in an intensive field experience, and teaching them how to generate insights.”

To better understand providers’ motivations, as well as patients’ perspectives on both the informal and formal providers, Miller and Divi will work with this new team to carry out qualitative fieldwork this summer.

Miller explained that the approach is very anthropological.

”To be able to understand these issues, we all have to see the world through another person’s eyes, whether that be a formal or informal health provider or a patient,” he said. “This approach fundamentally relies on strong collaboration with Indian partners.”

The initiative’s teams will spend their weeks interviewing different health care providers and patients in a handful of Indian villages, taking copious notes and ultimately translating hundreds of interviews into findings.

Roshan Shankar, MS/MPP ’14, worked as part of the initiative’s team last summer, focusing on understanding pregnant women’s decisions about where to deliver their babies. After considering several summer internships with consulting firms and international organizations, Shankar declined these opportunities, instead opting to work with the Stanford India Health Policy Initiative.

Shankar is from New Delhi and has always planned to move back to his home country and work in government after school. He said the India Health Policy Initiative was a way to better understand his nation and the pressing challenges facing it.

“I’m used to sitting at a table and not venturing out,” Shankar said. “This experience showed me that things are much more different on the ground than on paper.”

After his work with the Stanford Health Policy Initiative, Shankar said he is now certain he wants to return to India and work in government.

“It was a humbling and enlightening experience. I think the way we did this entire analysis will affect the way I do any work there,” he said. “It will ensure that I do a more effective evaluation of the policies and programs that I work on, and start by going to see people who use them.”

The Stanford India Health Policy Initiative is supported by several organizations including the Center for Innovation in Global Health and the Office of International Affairs.

Teal Pennebaker is a freelance writer.

 

Hero Image
IMG 1365
Stanford medical student Bina Choi, center, interviews a woman about her pregnancy experience for the Stanford India Health Policy Initiative last summer. Choi is joined by colleagues from SIHPI partner organization the Institute of Socio-Economic Research on Development and Democracy.
Roshan Shankar
All News button
1
Subscribe to Health Care