Foreign aid to the public health sectors of developing countries often appears to be allocated backwards: The global burden of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes or heart disease is enormous – yet they receive little health aid. 

By comparison, the global burden of HIV is much smaller, yet it receives more health aid than any other single disease.

So will a wholesale reversal in health aid priorities improve global health? The answer, according to a new study by Stanford researchers, is that if the goal is to maximize the health benefits from each donor dollar, health aid is actually allocated pretty well.

Still, reallocating foreign aid to step up the fight against malaria and TB could lead to greater overall health improvements in developing nations. And it could be done without spending more money, the researchers have found.

Eran Bendavid, an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine and a core faculty member at the Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, and three Stanford research assistants write in the July issue of Health Affairs that more health aid is going to disease categories with more cost-effective interventions.

"What we found, somewhat to our surprise, is that in nearly all countries, more aid was flowing to finance priorities with more cost-effective options,” Bendavid said in an interview. “That is partly because more aid was flowing to the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases such as HIV and malaria, and their management can be relatively inexpensive, even if the burden of these diseases is lower than that of non-communicable diseases.”

Bendavid, an infectious disease physician, added: “Conversely, even though the burden of non-communicable diseases is high and growing, addressing these chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease is, broadly, more costly than the unfinished infectious disease agenda.”

The authors also show that just because health aid is broadly allocated toward better cost-effectiveness does not mean that it cannot be better allocated.

The biggest gains would come from taking some of the foreign aid earmarked for HIV or maternal, newborn or child health, and putting it toward programs to treat malaria and tuberculosis, they write.

The Stanford research team reviewed the literature for cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting five disease categories: HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, non-communicable disease and maternal, newborn and child health.

What they found was that aid from wealthy nations to developing ones might be allocated efficiently, but that the money is not always spent in the best interest of curbing the communicable diseases that would improve the overall health of a nation.

It is crucial, therefore, to further study the consequences of realignment of donor funds.

Public health aid is critical to most developing countries. Development assistance from high-income countries to public health sectors of low- and middle-income countries amounts to nearly 40 percent of public health spending in countries with a per capita GDP of less than $2,000.

The researchers focused on 20 countries that received the greatest total amount of aid between 2008 and 2011, a period of historically unprecedented growth in health aid. Development assistance has since flattened, however, so the authors believe it’s increasingly important to consider best value when investing limited resources.

The 20 countries studied ­– from Afghanistan to Zambia – received $58 billion out of the total $103.2 billion in recorded health aid disbursements to 170 countries between 2001 and 2011.

“Over the period of 2001-2011, a greater amount of disbursements flowed to HIV programs than any other disease category,” the authors write. “On average, interventions addressing malaria and had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which indicates that malaria interventions could yield greater health improvements from each dollar compared with the interventions having a higher ICER.”

The authors analyzed the data and determined that the alignment improves if up to 61 percent of HIV aid is reallocated for TB control and up to 80 percent is reallocated for malaria control.

“Our evidence suggests that the greatest improvements in the efficiency of global health dollars could result from reallocating funds to malaria and TB control programs,” the authors write.

“This study shows, for the first time, that the current allocation of health aid is generally aligned with the cost-effectiveness of targeted interventions. Contrary to common views that advocate for reprioritization toward non-communicable diseases, our data suggest that the alignment could best be improved by focusing on malaria and TB, especially where addressing those diseases is highly cost effective.”

The other authors of the study are Andrew Duong and Gillian Raikes, both research assistants in the Program of Human Biology; and Charlotte Sagan, a RA in the School of Medicine.

The increasing resistance to antimicrobial drugs is a growing public health concern, particularly in low- and middle-income countries that require high out-of-pocket payments for prescription drugs.

“Understanding the drivers of antibiotic resistance in low- to middle-income countries is important for wealthier nations because antibiotic-resistant pathogens, similar to other communicable diseases, do not respect national boundaries,” said Marcella Alsan, MD, PhD, MPH, the lead author of the study, which was published July 9 in The Lancet Infectious Disease.

Alsan is an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford, an investigator at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System and a core faculty member at the Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research.

“Out-of-pocket health expenditures are a major source of health-care financing in the developing world,” said Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a professor of medicine, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and another core faculty member at CHP/PCOR.

Read the full article here.

“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

“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

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

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.

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

“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.”

Dr. Marcella Alsan argues that the tsetse fly contributed to Africa's historically low population density.