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.”

Global warming and more days of extreme heat are exacerbating the health risks of pregnancy, particularly among African-American women, according to new Stanford-led research.

The maternal mortality rate among all women in the United States is already the worst of any industrialized nation. And black women are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related problems than white women.

“It is truly a crisis that in America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, more women are dying from pregnancy or childbirth complications than in any other developed country,” said Maya Rossin-Slater, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy and a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

In a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Rossin-Slater and two other health economists underscore how little research is out there about the impact of rising temperatures on the health of mothers and their newborns.

Pregnant women, for example, are not able to regulate body temperature as efficiently as non-pregnant individuals due to the physiological changes they undergo during gestation. Heat exposure can alter blood flow in the placenta, which can weaken the placenta and lead to complications. And high heat can lead to other pregnancy complications, such as hypertension, preeclampsia and prolonged premature rupture of membranes.

“All of these issues can translate into women needing to be hospitalized during pregnancy and experiencing complications during childbirth,” wrote Rossin-Slater, an assistant professor of health research and policy at Stanford Medicine. Her co-authors are Jiyoon Kim, assistant professor of economics at Elon University, and Ajin Lee, an assistant professor of economics at Michigan State University.

The researchers said most of the discussion about maternal health focuses on the health-care system, but that other determinants of poor maternal health and racial disparities are much less understood, particularly when it comes to how the environment is impacting pregnancy.

So they launched what they believe is the first study to identify the causal effects of prenatal exposures to extreme temperatures on the health of the mothers themselves.

As the Earth Warms, So Does Exposure to Extreme Heat

Their paper focuses on an environmental factor that is becoming increasingly relevant due to the growing consensus that climate change is contributing to a gradual warming of the earth: exposure to extreme heat.

The researchers studied the effects of exposure to extreme temperatures during pregnancy on maternal and child hospitalizations, using inpatient discharge records from three U.S. states with different climates: Arizona, New York and Washington. Their data comes from the State Inpatient Databases from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, including 2.7 million inpatient records of 2.7 million infants and 2.2 million mothers in those three states.

And to measure temperature exposure, the researchers obtained data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

For every county in their data, the researchers calculated the average temperature for every month. Then for every given day in a specific month in that county, they looked at the historic average for how high or low that day’s temperature was relative to the overall temperature in that month in that county.

For example, a 90-degree day in Arizona in September would not be classified as extreme heat since it’s relatively common. But a 90-degree day in New York would be, since temperatures that high are much less common. They classified “extreme heat” as a given day when the temperature is more than three standard deviations (3SD) above that historic county mean.

Then, they compared the outcomes of women who are of the same race giving birth in the same county and calendar month, but in different years. These women are likely similar in terms of their demographics and socioeconomic status, but may be exposed to different temperatures during pregnancy. For example, consider a black woman giving birth in November 2011 in Queens County, New York, and a black woman giving birth in November 2012 in the same county. If there were a heat wave in Queens in the August 2012, then the latter woman is exposed to more extreme heat during pregnancy than the former. 

The economists found that each additional day with heat that is at least 3SDs — or substantially higher than the historic county-month average — during the second trimester of pregnancy increases the likelihood that a newborn is diagnosed with dehydration by .008 percentage points.

“Our results provide new estimates of the health costs of climate change and identify environmental drivers of the black-white maternal health gap,” they wrote. “Understanding the health consequences of this increase in extreme heat is critical information for discussions about the costs of climate change and the possible benefits of mitigating policies.”

The researchers found that each additional day of extreme heat exposure during pregnancy increases black women’s likelihood of hospitalization during pregnancy. Since black women on average are exposed to more extreme heat than white women — due to different residence patterns and access to mitigating technologies like air conditioning — extreme heat may contribute to exacerbating the already large gap in maternal health between black and white women.

Detrimental Consequences of Rising Temperatures

Scientists predict global average temperatures will continue to rise over the next 50 to 100 years as greenhouse gases continue to trap more heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year warned that nations worldwide must quickly reduce fossil fuel use to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5°C by 2050. 

The panel also said the number of days with mean temperatures above 32°C in the average American county is forecasted to increase from about 1 to 43 days per year by 2070-2099.

That could have detrimental consequences for babies and mothers alike.

“Overall, our findings on infant health suggest that exposure to extreme heat during the second trimester increases the likelihood of the baby being dehydrated at the time of birth,” the researchers wrote. “This, in turn, appears to increase the likelihood of subsequent readmission to the hospital many months later for causes linked to dehydration.”

And these impacts are typically missed when researchers only measure infant health using more standard variables, such as birth weight.

The authors note dehydration is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in children. Studies show that children under 5 years old who have an average of two episodes of gastroenteritis associated with dehydration per year leads to 2 to 3 million pediatric office visits and accounts for 10% of all pediatric hospital admissions in the United States. 

Experts believe black women are three- to four-times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes due to lack of access to and the poor quality of health care, as well as clinicians not monitoring black women as closely — or actually dismissing their symptoms altogether.

“The fact that the adverse impacts on health during pregnancy are larger for black than for white mothers suggests that climate change may exacerbate the already large racial gap in maternal health,” the researchers said.

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.

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.”

The United States has more people with new HIV diagnoses each year than any high-income nation. There is this widespread misconception out there that we’ve got it under control; that the drug cocktails are so effective that HIV is no longer a leading threat.

“Unfortunately, HIV remains a major public health problem in the U.S.,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens. He is chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which issued two influential recommendations Tuesday for the prevention and treatment of HIV.

“Each year, almost 40,000 people acquire HIV, he said. “It’s not acceptable and requires our urgent attention.”

Owens, the Henry J. Kaiser, Jr., professor at Stanford Medicine, said an estimated 1.1 million people are currently living with HIV in this country — and more than 700,000 people have died of AIDS since the first cases were reported in 1981. Of the 38,281 new diagnoses of HIV reported in 2017, 81% were among men and 19% among women.

“There are highly effective preventive interventions that can help us toward the goal of ending the HIV epidemic in the U.S.,” said Owens, who is also an investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System “However, we know not enough people receive these interventions.”

The task force recommends clinicians screen everyone aged 15 to 65 and all pregnant women for HIV and offer pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) — a pill that helps prevent HIV — to people at high risk of contracting the potentially fatal infection.

It released its recommendations with a series of articles and editorials in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), calling for dramatic action to end the AIDS epidemic in the United States once and for all. 

The task force is an independent, volunteer panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine who work to improve the health of all Americans by making recommendations. They typically give letter grades to its recommendations, and this time issued its highest grade, an A.

The draft recommendations were made last year and then put out for review and public comment. The recommendations made Tuesday are final.

The benefit of this endorsement could be substantial, according to one of the accompanying editorials in JAMA, because under the Affordable Care Act, Grade A and B recommendations made by the USPSTF should be covered by private insurance without patient cost-sharing.

“How this recommendation will be implemented is of critical importance because cost is a major barrier for people both to start and to stay on PrEP,” wrote Diane V. Havlir, MD, and Susan P. Buchbinder, MD, in their editorial. At present, they wrote, the average monthly retail cost for PrEP without insurance is nearly $2,000.

The task force members concluded “with high certainty” that while there are some small harms associated with PreP, the magnitude of benefit with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based therapy to reduce the risk of HIV infection in people at high risk is substantial.

“Clinicians can make a real difference toward reducing the burden of HIV in the United States, Owens said in the task force statement. “HIV screening and HIV prevention work to reduce new HIV infections and ultimately save lives.”

Fewer than half of all adults have ever been tested for HIV in the U.S. and many of those requiring more frequent testing are not receiving it. The task force emphasized that clinicians should make testing routine and ensure patients are given an environment that is free of judgment during discussions of sexual health.

Screening is the only way to know if a person has been infected with HIV because, after initial flu-like symptoms, HIV does not cause any signs of symptoms for several years. So the task force recommends HIV screening for everyone between of 15 and 65 and for pregnant women.

In addition to screening, people need to prevent getting HIV by using condoms during sex, the task force said, for those who inject drugs, using clean needles and syringes.

People at high risk for HIV have an additional strategy for prevention in taking PrEP, the task force said in its statement. “For people at high risk of getting HIV, the benefits of PrEP far outweigh the harms, which can include kidney problems and nausea.”

Read the full task force statement and accompanying articles and editorials in JAMA.  

A new study by Stanford economists shows that giving fathers flexibility to take time off work in the months after their children are born improves the postpartum health and mental well-being of mothers.

In the study, slated for release by the National Bureau of Economic Research on June 3, Petra Persson and Maya Rossin-Slater examined the effects of a reform in Sweden that introduced more flexibility into the parental leave system. The 2012 law removed a prior restriction preventing a child’s mother and father from taking paid leave at the same time. And it allowed fathers to use up to 30 days of paid leave on an intermittent basis within a year of their child’s birth while the mothers were still on leave.

The policy change resulted in some clear benefits toward the mother’s health, including reductions in childbirth-related complications and postpartum anxiety, according to their empirical analysis.

“A lot of the discussion around how to support mothers is about mothers being able to take leave, but we often don’t think about the other part of the equation — fathers,” says Rossin-Slater, an assistant professor of health research and policy.

“Our study underscores that the father’s presence in the household shortly after childbirth can have important consequences for the new mother's physical and mental health,” says Persson, an assistant professor of economics.

Rossin-Slater and Persson are both faculty fellows at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Among their main findings of effects following the reform: Mothers are 14 percent less likely to need a specialist or be admitted to a hospital for childbirth-related complications — such as mastitis or other infections — within the first six months of childbirth. And they are 11 percent less likely to get an antibiotic prescription within that first half-year of their baby’s life.

There is also an overall 26 percent drop in the likelihood of any anti-anxiety prescriptions during that six-month postpartum period — with reductions in prescriptions being most pronounced during the first three months after childbirth.

What’s more, the study found that the average new father used paid leave for only a few days following the reform — far less than the maximum 30 days allowed — indicating how strong of a difference a couple of days of extra support for the mother could make.

“The key here is that families are granted the flexibility to decide, on a day-to-day basis, exactly when to have the dad stay home,” said Persson. “If, for example, the mom gets early symptoms of mastitis while breastfeeding, the dad can take one or two days off from work so that the mom can rest, which may avoid complications from the infection or the need for antibiotics.”

These indirect benefits from giving fathers workplace flexibility are not trivial matters when you consider the health issues mothers often face after childbirth and after they get home from the hospital, says Rossin-Slater, who is also a faculty member of Stanford Health Policy.

Infections and childbirth complications lead to one out of 100 women getting readmitted to the hospital within 30 days in the United States, according to the study.

Meanwhile, postpartum depression occurs for about one out of nine women, and maternal mortality has also been a rising trend over the past 25 years in the U.S.

The study comes as a growing number of lawmakers in the United States vocalize support for paid family leave but have failed to pass federal legislation.

Washington, D.C., and six states have adopted various paid family leave laws, but the U.S. remains the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have a national mandate guaranteeing a certain amount of paid parental leave.

Some federal lawmakers are working on family leave measures and have proposed such legislation over the past few years — including The Family Act, The New Parents Act — but none of them have ever gained enough traction to proceed in Congress.

This new study can help broaden the policy discussions, the researchers say.

The larger context around paid family leave policies is often framed today as a way to help narrow the gender wage gap by giving women more workplace flexibility and fewer career setbacks.

This study, however, shines a light on maternal health costs and how a policy on paid family leave — that includes workplace flexibility for the father — offers more benefits than previously thought, Rossin-Slater says.

“It's important to think not only about giving families access to some leave, but also about letting them have agency over how they use it,” she says.

And when it comes to concerns that fathers might use paid parental leave to goof off instead of spending the time as intended, the researchers say their study should assuage those worries.

“It's not like fathers are going to end up using a whole month to just stay home and watch TV. We don't find any evidence of that,” Rossin-Slater says. “Instead they only use a limited number of days precisely when the timing for that seems most beneficial for the family.”

“For all these reasons,” Persson says, “giving households flexibility in how to use paternity leave makes a lot of sense.”

U.S. government aid for treating children and adults with HIV and malaria in developing countries has done more than expand access to lifesaving interventions: It has changed how people around the world view the United States, according to a new study by researchers at the School of Medicine.

Compared with other types of foreign aid, investing in health is uniquely associated with a better opinion of the United States, improving its “soft power” and standing in the world, the study said.  

Favorability ratings of the United States increased in proportion to health aid from 2002 to 2016 and rose sharply after the implementation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2003 and the launch of the President’s Malaria Initiative in 2005, the researchers report.

Their findings were published this week in the American Journal of Public Health. The lead author is postdoctoral scholar Aleksandra Jakubowski, PhD, MPH. The senior author is Eran Bendavid, MD, associate professor of medicine and a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy.

“Using data on aid and opinions of the United States, we found that investments in health offer a unique opportunity to promote the perceptions of the United States abroad, in addition to disease burden relief,” the authors wrote. “Our study provides new evidence to support the notion that health diplomacy is a net win for the United States and recipient countries alike.”

The Trump administration, however, has proposed a 23% cut in foreign aid in its 2020 budget, including large reductions to programs that fight AIDS and malaria overseas.

The Stanford researchers believe their study is the first to add heft to the argument that U.S. health aid boosts the “soft power” that wins the hearts and minds of foreign friends and foes.

“Our study shows that investing in health aid improves our nation’s standing abroad, which could have important downstream diplomatic benefits to the United States,” Jakubowskisaid. “Investments in health aid help the United States accumulate soft power. Allowing the U.S. reputation to falter would be contrary to our own interests.” 

A Policy Debate

Many politicians and economists consider spending U.S. tax dollars on foreign aid as an ineffective, and possibly harmful, enterprise that goes unappreciated and leads to accusations of American meddling in other countries’ national affairs.

The U.S. government, for the past 15 years, has contributed more foreign health aid than any other country, significantly reducing disease burden, increasing life expectancy and improving employment in recipient countries, the authors wrote. Still, this generosity has historically constituted less than 1% of the U.S. gross domestic product.

“Our results suggest that the dollars invested in health aid offer good value for money,” the researchers wrote. “That is, the relatively low investment in health aid (in terms of GDP) has provided the United States with large returns in the form of improved public perceptions, which may advance the U.S. government’s ability to negotiate international policies that are aligned with American priorities and preferences.”

The researchers used 258 Global Attitudes Surveys, based on interviews with more than 260,000 respondents, conducted by the Pew Research Center in 45 low- to middle-income countries between 2002 and 2016.

Their analysis focused on the health sector, which includes several large programs for infectious disease control, but also support for nutrition, child health and reproductive health programs. They compared health aid to other major areas of U.S. investment: governance, infrastructure, humanitarian aid and military aid. They also constructed a database of news stories that mentioned the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or the President’s Malaria Initiative by crawling through the online archives of the top three newspapers by circulation in each of the 45 countries.

They found that the probability of populations holding a very favorable opinion of the United States was 19 percentage points higher in the countries where and years when U.S. donations for health care were highest, compared with countries where and years when health aid donations were lowest. Using another metric, the researchers found that every additional $100 million in health aid was associated with a nearly 6 percentage-point increase in the probability of respondents indicating they had a “very favorable” opinion of the United States. 

In contrast, the researchers found, aid for governance, infrastructure, humanitarian and military purposes was not associated with a better opinion of the United States.

Bendavid, an infectious diseases physician and core faculty member of Stanford Health Policy, said that when he set out to conduct this research, he believed it would result “in a resounding thud” — that the “soft power” of health aid would have no impact on public opinion.

“For me, the notion that this program — hatched and headquartered in D.C. — would have impacts among millions in Nairobi and Dakar, seemed farfetched,” Bendavid said. “I was incredulous until all the pieces were in place.”

The ‘America First’ Agenda

The Trump administration’s “America First” agenda is calling for significant cuts to global health aid, particularly to the highly successful AIDS relief program, which was established by President George W. Bush. The administration’s budget, released in March, proposed a $860 million cut to the program; the President’s Malaria Initiative is facing a $331 million reduction in federal funding. That’s a decline of 18% and 44%, respectively.

The U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria would also decline by 17%, or $225 million, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Yet beyond the reputational damage to the United States, such cuts could be a major setback to improving health outcomes in developing countries, the researchers said. After all, HIV knows no borders, and having more resilient health care systems is instrumental when facing public health crises, such as the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Jakubowski said.

“The most direct impact of cutting the United States’ health aid allocations is the potential to undermine or reverse the progress that has been enabled by U.S. aid in curbing mortality and the spread of disease,” Bendavid said. “However, this study suggests there are also repercussions to the United States: the relationships the U.S. has built with recipient nations could also be undermined.”            

Other Stanford co-authors are Steven Asch, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, and former graduate student Don Mai.

Stanford’s Department of Medicine supported the work.