Stanford Health Policy researchers, led by Josh Salomon, have been awarded a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct health and economic modeling to guide national and local policies and programs focusing on some of the most important infectious diseases in the United States.

The CDC grant establishes the Prevention Policy Modeling Lab at Stanford, continuing a multi-institution collaboration that began when Salomon was a professor at Harvard prior to joining Stanford in 2017.

“The overall mission of the Prevention Policy Modeling Lab is to leverage the best available evidence to inform strategic decision-making about major public health problems,” Salomon said. “We do this by combining techniques from decision science, simulation modeling and health economics to estimate and project major patterns and trends in these diseases and to evaluate different clinical and public health strategies to address them.”

The initiative will focus on policy and practice in the areas of tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections and adolescent health. The grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports a wide range of modeling activities, including those that assess: 

• Projections of future morbidity and mortality
• Burden and costs of diseases
• Costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions
• Population-level program impact
• Optimized resource allocation

Stanford researchers who are involved in the Modeling Lab include Douglas K. Owens, Margaret Brandeau, Eran Bendavid, Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, Jason Andrews, Samuel So and Mehlika Toy. The consortium also includes partners at Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Boston University, Boston Medical Center and the MA Department of Public Health.

“As a multi-institution consortium, on any given problem we’re able to assemble a team that includes both subject matter experts and collaborators who specialize in statistics, epidemiology, data science, economics and decision analysis,” Salomon said. “The policy models that we develop allow us to synthesize a wide array of different types and sources of evidence to shed light on the essence of the problem and to weigh the likely benefits and costs of responding in different ways.”

Prior work from the consortium on the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of expanding testing for hepatitis C virus was cited in the recent decision by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to revise their screening recommendations to cover all adults. The Modeling Lab has also examined prospects and strategies for eliminaitng tuberculosis in the United States and policies relevant to the rising threat of antimicrobial-resistant gonococcal infection among other topics.

A team of Stanford experts has produced a series of videos aimed at benefiting children detained at the U.S. border. Intended for lawyers who work with detained migrants, the videos describe how to interview young people using techniques informed by scientific knowledge on trauma. 

Image

To ask such questions in a sensitive way, the videos recommend giving children and teens as much control as possible: For example, attorneys are encouraged to explain that they want to help; familiarize themselves beforehand with what they need to say so that they can speak warmly instead of reading from a list; praise interviewees for their effort rather than the content of their answers; and tell kids they can take breaks or end the interview at any time, or skip answering questions if they wish.

When it comes to rooting out wasteful spending in federal entitlement programs, attention has long focused on preventing beneficiaries from gaming the system.

A new Stanford study identifies a fresh cause for concern: the for-profit companies that the U.S. government increasingly tasks with providing benefits to Americans who are often poor, elderly or both.

In a new working paper, Maria Polyakova, an assistant professor of medicine, finds that outsourcing public assistance services to third parties can lead to unanticipated effects on prices as well as on which beneficiaries gain the most from public dollars.

That’s because companies are in the business of making money. And when they know which of their consumers are likely to get certain levels of public support, they will try to use this information to maximize their profits, according to the research published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Polyakova shows that when companies act in their self-interest, unforeseen inequities and inefficiencies can arise that may hurt some consumers while helping others. At a time when governments in the United States and around the world are increasingly turning to the private sector to provide public benefits — namely in health care and in education — Polyakova says policymakers need to better understand how these intermediaries are affecting welfare programs.

“Policymakers have to be more careful about introducing intermediaries into public services,” says Polyakova, who is a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), and teaches at the Stanford School of Medicine. She is also a core faculty member of Stanford Health Policy. “They may want to revisit how they think about outsourcing when research is showing that there are unintended consequences that may be positive or negative.”

Health Insurance Pricing under the Microscope

Intermediaries are central to a number of public services where the U.S. government provides subsidies to consumers, often based on income, age or employment status. Prominent examples include privately-managed Medicare Advantage Plans, drug benefits under Medicare Plan D, and charter schools in secondary education.

According to Polyakova, most research into wasteful spending within government subsidies has focused on consumers and how they try to trick the system by, for example, hiding income to qualify for a tax credit or cash assistance. Governments, though imperfect, have long been seen as benign players.

The increasing involvement of for-profit companies, she says, shows there’s a need to closely examine what’s happening on the supply side of public welfare.

To do that, Polyakova found an ideal setting: the federal health insurance marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Most consumers who shop for coverage through www.healthcare.gov receive a subsidy in the form of a tax credit that covers all or part of their insurance premium. The amount of their tax credit is tied to their household income.

The dollars at stake are significant. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2019 the federal government will pay $560 billion in subsidies for privately-provided health insurance, including the spending on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces as well as other similarly designed programs. That figure is expected to hit $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

The Neighborhood Effect

Polyakova and her co-author — Stephen Ryan of Washington University’s Olin Business School — analyzed data from 2017 covering more than 9 million enrollees across some 2,570 counties around the country. They find that the presence of an intermediary significantly impacts insurance prices and key measures economists use to calculate the effects of a policy beyond a given benefit’s face value.

Specifically, they show that health insurance companies will have an incentive to raise premiums in markets where more consumers receive the higher tax credit because their incomes are low and the government is required to subsidize them.

On the flip side, insurers will charge lower prices in places where such subsidized consumers are less willing to buy coverage if they think it costs too much.

To illustrate the unintended consequences of the insurers’ actions, the researchers point out that, in the first instance where prices increase, consumers with incomes that are slightly higher than other community members will end up paying more for the same coverage. Under the second scenario, consumers who don’t qualify for the tax credit because their incomes are too high benefit from the lower premiums aimed at nearby residents.

“The price you pay for insurance will depend on who your neighbors are,” says Polyakova. “If you live near people who are poorer than you, you will be affected differently than if you live near people who are richer than you.”

Change the subsidy, change the calculation

Like with financial aid, tax credits for insurance coverage are calculated based on consumer income. But there is another type of subsidy that policymakers could use — flat vouchers, in which all members of a market receive the same benefit regardless of income, age or some other characteristic. For their research, Polyakova and Ryan also analyze how flat vouchers that only vary by age, but not by income, would hypothetically alter private health insurance prices in the federal Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Here, too, the scholars find different impacts on different types of consumers whether the subsidy is based on income or delivered as a flat voucher.

The analyses, says Polyakova, drive home the point that policymakers need to understand that there are trade-offs to relying on for-profit companies to provide government services and that the type of subsidy offered can alter how they calculate prices in disparate ways.

“There’s nothing wrong with companies trying to maximize their profits,” says Polyakova. “But sophisticated policymakers need to understand what happens when private markets get involved.”

I always find it hard to believe so many people are living in poverty: some 39.7 million Americans, or 12.3% of the population. It’s such a wealthy country, yet so many are poor.

In a twist that could be interpreted as good news — it doesn’t seem fair to say there is anything positive about living in poverty — I recently learned that older, low-income Americans tend to be healthier if they live in more affluent areas of the country.

Not only are they healthier, but their physical well-being is better across the board with a lower prevalence of dozens of chronic conditions, particularly if they live in rural communities. This, despite their income having less purchasing power in those better-resourced neighborhoods.

This was the key finding in new research published by Stanford Health Policy’s Maria Polyakova in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

While recent studies have reported that low-income adults living in more affluent areas of the United States have longer life expectancies, less has been known about the relationship between the affluence of a geographic area and morbidity of the low-income population.

“I was interested in figuring out whether the same relationship holds for morbidity: Are poorer people less sick in richer areas?” Polyakova told me. “And if so, are there any specific conditions that drive these differences that could be the target for policy-making?”

So Polyakova, a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and her co-author, Lynn M. Hua at the University of Pennsylvania, set out to evaluate the association between chronic conditions among low-income, older adults and the economic affluence of a local area. 

They focused on nearly 6.4 million Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 aged 66 to 100 years old who received low-income support under Medicare Part D, a prescription drug program for Medicare enrollees. They investigated the prevalence of 48 chronic conditions among these patients, including common chronic conditions such as hypertension, depression, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. They found the presence of all conditions is highly correlated: places, where the poor tend to have a high prevalence of one disease, are likely to have a high prevalence of all 48 conditions.

“While we cannot ascertain a causal relationship, our results clearly point towards the importance of further understanding why the socioeconomic environment of low-income, older adults is so tightly linked to such a broad measure of health,” the researchers wrote. 

The results, they said, were broadly consistent with the extensive literature on the social determinants of health. But their work takes that literature even further.

“Our study extends this research by providing measures of the prevalence of chronic conditions among low-income, older adults for a large national sample of the U.S. population,” Polyakova said. 

The researchers used clinical, rather than self-reported measures of diagnoses and reported this group’s variation in morbidity across local areas of the country, rather than nationally. 

“Our results raise the bar for researchers who are trying to find out what factors drive health disparities in the U.S.; these factors would have to be able to explain the differences in nearly 50 condition,” Polyakova said.

The study supported by the National Institute on Aging came to three key conclusions:

1. The health of low-income, older adults in the United States varies substantially across local geographic regions, and this variation cannot be attributed to one specific disease or a narrow set of conditions. 
2. Consistent with their original hypothesis, they found that more affluent local areas of the country have a lower prevalence of chronic conditions in the low-income, older adult population.
3. The researchers found that low-income, older adults have better health in rural areas of the country.

I wondered why these poor, older adults do particularly well in rural communities, as those regions often lack easy access to high-quality health care and state-of-the-art hospitals.

“We don’t know the exact answer, but there is a general sense that differences in the social fabric and lifestyle in rural areas — could contribute to this pattern,” Polyakova told me. “It appears that better health in these areas persists, despite challenges of accessing formal care.”

On August 26, Judge Thad Balkman delivered a $572 million judgment against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson for the company’s role in fueling the opioid epidemic in Oklahoma. In the discussion that follows, Stanford Law Professors Michelle Mello and Nora Freeman Engstrom discuss the decision and how other cases tied to the national opioid crisis are developing.

The Oklahoma decision took many onlookers by surprise. How did the case unfold? And what did Judge Balkman find? On Monday, Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman of Oklahoma issued a judgment that capped off a long and closely-scrutinized trial wherein the Oklahoma Attorney General faced off against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), claiming that J&J contributed to the opioid epidemic that has devastated the state of Oklahoma.

Image

Stanford Law Professors Michelle Mello and Nora Freeman Engstrom

To understand the verdict, a bit of background is helpful. When Oklahoma initially sued, it cast the net broadly, asserting claims against several defendants under several causes of action.  Certain defendants (namely, Purdue and Teva) chose to settle rather than roll the dice at trial. (Purdue, the maker of OxyContin, agreed to pay Oklahoma $270 million and Teva, one of the world’s leading providers of generic drugs, $85 million; neither admitted wrongdoing.)  Further, over time, Oklahoma’s various causes of action got winnowed down to the singular claim that J&J had created a public nuisance by aggressively and deceptively marketing opioid products to Oklahoma’s doctors and patients.  This posture meant that Oklahoma’s victory at trial was far from a foregone conclusion, as public nuisance claims can be very hard to prove, particularly in cases that relate to dangerous products.

With that table set, the trial began on May 28, 2019.  In a crowded courtroom in Cleveland County, it stretched on for nearly seven weeks and featured dozens of witnesses and more than 800 exhibits. The trial was a bench trial, meaning there was no jury, but there was a written opinion explaining the judge’s decision.  Judge Balkman’s 42-page opinion offers a cogent summary of the evidence and governing law and, broadly, vindicates Oklahoma’s litigation strategy. The opinion finds that J&J engaged in a deceptive marketing campaign designed to convince Oklahoma doctors and the public that opioids were safe and effective for the long-term treatment of chronic, non-malignant pain. Further, this “false, misleading, and dangerous marketing” caused “exponentially increasing rates of addiction [and] overdose death,” which ravaged the Sooner State. The picture Judge Balkman draws is stark and, for J&J, devastating.

Are individuals suing drug companies too? Are there class action cases that are relevant?

There are some suits by individuals, but we don’t believe that’s where the big money damages—and the real social impact of the litigation—will be.  More important is the pending federal multi-district litigation (MDL), which consolidates nearly 2,000 individual federal lawsuits brought by cities, counties, municipalities, and tribal governments in a single action before Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland, Ohio. Additionally, 48 states have initiated separate litigation, with a lineup of claims and defendants similar to the MDL.

Does this win for Oklahoma mean these other plaintiffs have an easy road ahead?

Not easy, but potentially easier. The Oklahoma case is what we call a bellwether. Like the ram that leads the other sheep this way or that, the bellwether trial doesn’t control the path of future litigation. But it does go first, and it helps to indicate trends.

As a bellwether, the big verdict here is very reassuring to the many states, counties, municipalities, and tribes suing opioid makers, distributors, and retailers, and it is, correspondingly, very disturbing for those who made and sold opioids to the American public.  The verdict suggests that this litigation has legs, and that judges and juries may be willing to pin blame not just on Purdue, the maker of OxyContin, but on others who played an arguably less central role in fueling this public health crisis.

What is striking is how damning Judge Balkman’s factual conclusions about J&J’s conduct are, and how similar they are to the allegations made against other opioid manufacturers in other cases.  All the things he objected to regarding J&J’s marketing practices are things that others, too, allegedly have done. Some of them are things that multiple companies banded together to do. Plaintiffs’ attorneys should be feeling pretty confident about their chances of persuading other courts that those practices are problematic.

Is Oklahoma free to use the award as it wishes? Will the state share some of the award with the people who died or suffered in the opioid crisis (if the decision is upheld on appeal)?

The damages, in this case, are intended to fund Oklahoma’s “nuisance abatement plan.”  That’s the remedy in a public nuisance case: The defendant has to pay to clean up the mess it made. In this case, Oklahoma provided a detailed plan laying out what would be needed to abate the opioid problem in the state. The costs added up to $572 million for the first year, and that’s what the judge awarded—not the $17 billion Oklahoma sought for a multi-year abatement effort.

The plan specifies that the money will be used for opioid use disorder screening, prevention and treatment ($292 million), housing and other services for those in recovery ($32 million), continuing medical education programs ($108 million), a pain management benefit program ($103 million), treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome ($21 million), and other services.  Individuals won’t be direct recipients of the funds, though they may receive the services funded.

Legally, what happens next?

J&J has vowed to appeal the “flawed” Oklahoma judgment, and we expect that the judgment will be appealed, first to Oklahoma’s intermediate, and then, likely, to its supreme, court.  More immediately, though, attention will turn from Oklahoma to Ohio.  The first bellwether trial in the MDL, involving claims from Ohio’s Cuyahoga and Summit counties, is scheduled to begin on October 21.

Even as they prepare for trial, however, lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants are also, no doubt, continuing to work toward reaching a broad and encompassing settlement.  When Judge Polster was first assigned the MDL back in January 2018, he made no bones about his desire to do “something meaningful to abate this crisis”—and to do it quickly.  It hasn’t been easy to execute on that, which isn’t surprising given the unprecedented magnitude and complexity of the litigation.

Still, we expect that, sooner or later, the opioid litigation will settle.  Indeed, even as we write, news is breaking that Purdue and the Sacklers may be in the midst of a negotiation whereby Purdue would declare bankruptcy and the Sacklers would contribute a cash payment of roughly $4.5 billion-plus relinquish ownership of the company, in return for peace with plaintiffs.

But even forging a settlement involving just those two entities is tricky—and forging a broader settlement will be exponentially harder for a number of reasons.  One is that any truly global agreement needs to pass muster with a range of defendants, some of whom have comparatively shallow pockets, and all of whom sold (or made or distributed) different products, at different times, in different quantities, in different states.  And, on the other side of the table, any settlement agreement needs to get buy-in from both those plaintiffs in the MDL and also state attorneys’ general, who have their own distinct set of priorities and interests relating to their separate lawsuits.  Further, because only a small proportion of eligible cities and counties have joined the MDL to date, any global settlement needs to somehow—equitably but firmly—close the courthouse door on those potential future plaintiffs.  None of this will be easy to accomplish.  But whenever new information reduces uncertainty about how courts would resolve a legal dispute, settlement becomes more likely—and, here, the Oklahoma verdict makes a significant contribution.

 

Nora Freeman Engstrom, Professor of Law and Deane F. Johnson Faculty Scholar, is a nationally-recognized expert in tort law, legal ethics, and complex litigation. Her work explores the day-to-day operation of the tort system—particularly its interaction with alternative compensation mechanisms. Michelle Mello, Professor of Law and Professor of Health Research and Policy (School of Medicine), is a leading empirical health scholar and the author of more than 150 book chapters and articles, including “Drug Companies’ Liability for the Opioid Epidemic,” recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.  

A task force of national health experts has released a draft recommendation to screen all adults 18 to 79 years for the hepatitis C virus (HCV), noting the opioid epidemic has fueled what has become the most common chronic bloodborne pathogen in the United States.

Cases of acute HCV have increased 3.5-fold over the last decade, particularly among young, white, injection drug users who live in rural areas. Women aged 15 to 44 have also been hit hard by the virus that is spread through contaminated blood.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which makes recommendations followed by primary care clinicians nationwide, has until now recommended that people who are at high risk be tested for hepatitis C, as well as “baby boomers” born between 1945 and 1965.

“Unfortunately, HCV now affects a broader age range than previously with three times as many new infections per year,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, chair of the independent, voluntary panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine.

The Task Force now recommends that clinicians encourage all their adult patients, even those with no symptoms or known liver disease, get a blood test for the virus. Pregnant women should also be screened; from 2009 to 2014, the prevalence of HCV infection among women giving birth has nearly doubled.

“The explosive growth in HCV has been fueled by the opioid epidemic, with the spread of HCV into younger populations,” said Owens, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. “HCV now kills more Americans than all other reportable infectious diseases combined, including HIV.”

An estimated 4.1 million people in the United States are carrying HCV antibodies; about 2.4 million are living with the virus, according to the Task Force. The HCV infection becomes chronic in 75% to 85% of cases and some of those people develop symptoms such as chronic fatigue and depression, and liver diseases that can range from cirrhosis to liver cancer.

Approximately one-third of people ages 18 to 30 who inject drugs are infected with the virus; 70% to 90% of older injection-drug users are infected.

There currently is no vaccine for hepatitis C although research in the development of a vaccine is underway. But there are effective oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications that can clear the virus from the body, particularly if caught early.

“The good news is that treatment for HCV is far better, and far better tolerated than in the past, offering a cure to most people,” Owens said. “Early identification of HCV is important to prevent long-term complications of HCV including liver failure, liver cancer, and death.”

The Task Force said in a release that there are several key research gaps that could inform the benefit of screening for HCV infection:

1. ·     Research is needed on the yield of repeat vs. one-time screening for HCV.
2. ·     Research is needed to identify labor management practices and treatment of HCV infection prior to pregnancy to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission.
3. ·     Trials and cohort studies that measure effects on quality of life, function, and extrahepatic effects of HCV infection (such as renal function, cardiovascular effects or diabetes) would be helpful for evaluating the impact of DAA regimens on short-term health outcomes.
4. ·     Additional studies are needed to examine the epidemiology of HCV infection and the effectiveness of DAA regimens in adolescents.

Physician training has long been notorious for marathon shifts, sleepless nights on call, and holidays worked. But that began to change in 2003, when the medical profession placed restrictions on work hours during residency. However, experts wondered, can we train residents in fewer hours and still make good doctors?

A new study in the BMJ says yes. The researchers, led by Dr. Anupam Jena, a professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Stanford Health Policy's Jay Bhattacharya, looked at the performance of internal medicine doctors in their first year of unsupervised medical practice after completing their training. 

They compared the outcomes for patients of two groups of physicians: those trained before 2003, when the typical work week was 100 hours; and those trained later under the new rules, which capped weekly hours at a mere 80, with no individual shift exceeding 30 hours. For the three quality measures examined — mortality within 30 days of being hospitalized, readmissions, and hospital services used (a measure of efficiency) — they found no differences between the groups.

Read More from this article published in STAT News.

A U.S. foreign policy that cuts money to nongovernmental organizations performing or promoting abortions abroad has actually led to an increase in abortions, according to Stanford researchers who have conducted the most comprehensive academic study of the policy’s impact.

Eran Bendavid and Grant Miller — both associate professors at Stanford University School of Medicine and core faculty members at Stanford Health Policy — and doctoral candidate Nina Brooks find that abortions increased among women living in African countries where NGOs, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, were most vulnerable to the policy’s requirements.

The policy, widely known as the Mexico City Policy, explicitly prohibits U.S. foreign aid from flowing to any NGO that will not abide by the policy’s main condition: no performing or discussing abortion as a method of family planning, even if just in the form of education or counseling.

The policy has been a political hot potato since its inception. Enacted under Ronald Reagan in 1984, it’s been enforced by subsequent Republican administrations while Democrats in the White House revoked the policy within days of taking office.

The study by Brooks, Bendavid and Miller, published June 27 in The Lancet Global Health, looked at the policy’s effects in more than two dozen African countries over a span of 20 years under three presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It finds that, when the policy was in place during the Bush years, abortions were 40 percent higher relative to the Clinton and Obama administrations.

When the policy was suspended during Obama’s two terms, the research shows that the upward trend in abortion rates reversed.

“Our research suggests that a policy that is supported by taxpayers ostensibly wishing to drive down abortion rates worldwide does the opposite,” said Bendavid, a faculty affiliate of the Stanford King Center on Global Development, which is part of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

A key reason for the uptick in abortions is that many NGOs affected by the policy also provide contraceptives – and funding cuts mean birth control is harder to get, said Brooks.

“By undercutting the ability to supply modern contraceptives, the unintended consequence is that abortion rates increase,” she said.

And the policy’s scope has expanded under the Trump administration. While it originally restricted aid directed only toward providing family planning and reproductive health services, President Trump has extended the policy to cover any group engaged in global health, including organizations providing services for HIV or child health – not just family planning.

Groundbreaking Research

The stakes are high. America is the world’s largest provider of development assistance and spent about $7 billion on international health aid in 2017. Many women in sub-Saharan Africa depend on this aid for contraceptives.

In sub-Saharan Africa, NGOs are often primary providers of family planning services. Two of the world’s largest family planning organizations – International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International – have forfeited large sums of U.S. cash for refusing to comply with the policy, according to news reports.

The research findings were based on records of nearly 750,000 women in 26 sub-Saharan African countries from 1995 to 2014. When the policy was in effect under George W. Bush, contraceptive use fell by 14 percent, pregnancies rose by 12 percent and abortions rose by 40 percent relative to the Clinton and subsequent Obama years – an impact sharply timed with the policy and in proportion to the importance of foreign assistance across sub-Saharan Africa.

The paper is the second study of the rule’s impact by Bendavid and Miller, who are both faculty members of Stanford Health Policy. The research is also one of the very few evidence-based analyses of the policy.

Their earlier research, the first quantitative, large-scale effort to examine the policy’s impacts, looked at a smaller set of African countries during the Clinton and Bush administrations and also found an increase in abortion rates when the policy was enacted in 2001.

“Our latest study strengthened our earlier findings because we were able to look at what happens when the rule was turned off, then on, and then off again,” said Bendavid, referring to the policy’s whipsawing under Clinton, Bush and then Obama.

Miller, who is the director of the King Center and a SIEPR senior fellow, says the team’s research reveals a deeply flawed policy.

“We set out to provide the best and most rigorous evidence on the consequences of this policy,” he said. “What we found is a clear-cut case of government action that everyone on all sides of the abortion debate should agree is not desirable.”

Signs of a Global Pushback

Brooks also notes that their findings may underestimate the rule’s full impact.

“The excess abortions performed due to the policy are more likely to be performed unsafely, potentially harming women beyond pregnancy terminations,” she said.

Under Trump, the international response to U.S. funding cuts has shifted. Norway, Canada and several other countries have pledged to increase funding of international NGOs affected by the policy – though not by enough to cover the expected shortfall, says Miller.

“This shows us,” he said, “that despite the intense partisanship in the U.S. over the rule and its implementation, there are ways that policymakers around the world can offset its effects – by ensuring higher levels of family planning funding, for example.”