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

Foreign aid for health care is directly linked to an increase in life expectancy and a decrease in child mortality in developing countries, according to a new study by Stanford researchers.

The researchers examined both public and private health-aid programs between 1974 and 2010 in 140 countries and found that, contrary to common perceptions about the waste and ineffectiveness of aid, these health-aid grants led to significant health improvements with lasting effects over time.

Countries receiving more health aid witnessed a more rapid rise in life expectancy and saw measurably larger declines in mortality among children under the age of 5 than countries that received less health aid, said Eran Bendavid, MD, an assistant professor in Stanford Medical School's Division of General Medical Disciplines and lead author of the study. If these trends continue, he said, an increase in health aid of just 4 percent, or $1 billion, could have major implications for child mortality.

“If health aid continues to be as effective as it has been, we estimate there will be 364,800 fewer deaths in children under 5,” he said. “We are talking about $1 billion, which is a relatively small commitment for developed countries.”

Does it work?

Bendavid noted that there is much debate around foreign aid. Critics question whether it’s used effectively and reaches its intended recipients. They often argue that it discourages local development and displaces domestic resources that might otherwise be devoted to health. So the researchers devised a statistical tool to address the basic unanswered question: Do investments in health really lead to health improvements?

Bendavid said there are many reasons to suspect the answer would be no, though the findings proved just the contrary, with health-related aid leading to direct, beneficial outcomes.

“I think for many people, that will be surprising,” he said. “But for me, it fits with other evidence of the incredible success of public health promotion in developing countries.” In a previous study, for instance, he found that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, in which the U.S. government invested billions of dollars in antiretroviral treatment and other AIDS-related prevention and treatment initiatives.

In the latest study, the two investigators used data from the Creditor Reporting System of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the world’s most extensive source of information on foreign aid. While aid programs for health grew during the 36-year study period, the largest period of growth occurred between 2000 and 2010, they found.

Stepped-up investments

It was during this decade that many governments and private groups stepped up their investments in health, including PEPFAR; the World Bank; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the Gates Foundation; and the GAVI Alliance, among others, he said.

As a result, while health aid in 1990 accounted for 4 percent of total foreign aid, it now amounts to 15 percent of all aid, he said. And it’s become an important part of health budgets in recipient countries, accounting for 25-30 percent of all health-care spending in low-income countries, Bendavid said.

The researchers found that these funds were used effectively, largely because of the targeting of aid to disease priorities where improved technologies — such as new vaccines, insecticide-treated bed nets for malarial prevention and antiretroviral drugs for HIV — could make a real difference.

They observed the greatest health impacts between 2000 and 2010, when donor investments were at their peak. During the decade, under-5 child mortality declined from a mean of 109.2 to 72.4 deaths per 1,000, or 36.8 fewer deaths among those children in the countries that received the most health aid, the researchers found (a 34 percent reduction). In the countries receiving the least, under-5 mortality fell from 31.6 to 23.2 deaths per 1,000, or 8.4 fewer deaths per 1,000 live births (a 26 percent reduction), the researchers reported.

Life expectancy increases

During that period, life-expectancy figures also grew faster in countries with a greater infusion of health aid, Bendavid said. Life expectancy rose from 57.5 to 62.3 — an increase of 4.8 years — among the countries receiving the most aid. Among the countries receiving the least health aid, life expectancy increased by 2.7 years, from 69.8 to 72.5 years.

Bendavid said previous experience has shown that, on average, life expectancy has increased by nearly one year every four years in developed countries. But health-aid programs literally cut in half the time it took to reach this goal in developing countries. “In that same four-year span, they increased life expectancy by two years, rather than one year,” he said.

He said the results are not surprising if one considers some of the new health technologies made available to developing nations as a result of foreign aid. Childhood vaccines, including those for diphtheria, tetanus, polio and measles, have all but wiped out what used to be among the top killers of young children in the developing world. Health aid directed to providing insecticide-treated malarial bed nets also has been credited in recent studies with reducing malarial deaths among young children, he noted.

Among both adults and children, aid that has expanded the availability of antiretroviral drugs in the developing world has had a major impact on reducing deaths and improving overall life expectancies, he said. For instance, in a study published in 2012, Bendavid and colleagues found that PEPFAR’s health aid resulted in more than 740,000 lives saved between 2004 and 2008 in nine countries.

The researchers also found that the benefits of aid have a lasting effect: The telltale signs of aid’s relationship to reducing under-5 mortality were detectable for three years following the distribution of aid. The correlation between health aid and longer life expectancy overall was detectable for five years after the aid was distributed.

With aid commitments flattening amid the economic downturn, Bendavid said donors will have to be that much smarter in how they invest future dollars, focusing on the most cost-effective interventions and technologies.

“To date, there has been little consideration of how to use development aid in the most cost-effective manner,” he said. “That will have to change now that the funding level has reached a plateau.”

The study was funded by the George Rosenkranz Fellowship for Health Policy Research in Developing Countries and by the National Institutes of Health (grant K01AI084582).

Information about Stanford’s Department of Medicine, which also supported the work, is available at http://medicine.stanford.edu.

Ruthann Richter is the director of media relations at the Stanford School of Medicine.

CHP/PCOR’s three new faculty members bring a varied background in behavioral health economics, law and children’s health outcomes

By Teal Pennebaker

Three researchers, whose work spans the globe as well as disciplines, have joined CHP/PCOR.  They include a health law professor, a physician economist interested in how behavioral issues influence patient outcomes, and another physician economist who will focus on health economic issues among children in developing countries.

“We are thrilled to welcome Marcella Alsan, David Studdert, and David Chan to our centers. Each of these folks fit into our centers' mission to produce rigorous relevant research by people who care deeply about the topics they probe,” CHP/PCOR Executive Director Kathryn McDonald said. “We credit the current community of scholars at Stanford with attracting these talented individuals to join forces with us.”

Professor David Studdert has spent the past six years at the University of Melbourne’ Law School teaching and studying policy issue at the intersection of health and legal systems.  His most recent research has investigated the relationship between speeding tickets and auto accidents, how patient complaints can be used as indicators health care quality, and how claimants move through workers’ compensation systems.

“David is one of the leading scholars in the world in health law and we are fortunate to have him join our faculty,” CHP/PCOR Director Doug Owens said. “David’s recruitment provides a terrific opportunity to expand our policy work, and his research will serve as the nucleus for joint training and research with our colleagues in the law school.”

Studdert, who will spend a quarter of his time at Stanford Law School, plans to focus on regulatory “hot spotting” in the short term—an approach that uses statistical profiling techniques to make regulation more efficient in areas ranging from medical malpractice to road safety. “There’s a lot going on in health care regulation in the United States,” Studdert said. “I hope to be able to collaborate with others at PCOR--it’s a very exciting, bright group of researchers with plenty of areas of mutual interest.”

Studdert has actually worked with CHP/PCOR members before—he was at RAND in the late 1990s while CHP/PCOR Professor Jay Bhattacharya was there. Similarly, CHP/PCOR’s newest faculty Marcella Alsan and David Chan have actually spent ample time together—before coming to Stanford, they did the same internal medicine residency program at the Brigham Women’s in Boston. Both Chan and Alsan will also practice medicine at the Veteran Affairs hospital part-time as is the case for some of the other clinical faculty members at CHP/PCOR. 

“We are delighted that we were able to recruit two exceptional physician economists to our centers,” Owens said. “Marcella brings deep understanding of global health from her training in infectious diseases along with the methodologic skills of an economist.  It is a rare combination and will enable her to make exceptional contributions in understanding the interplay of health and economics in the developing world. "  

Assistant Professor Marcella Alsan, who has a PhD in economics, a master’s in public health and a medical degree, will focus her research on policy questions in international health, particularly among children in developing countries.  Right now she’s finishing up a project looking at the spillover effects for the siblings and family members of children participating in a large-scale immunization program in Turkey. Alsan is also in the midst of revising a job market paper about how disease affects long-term economic development of Africa. 

“I’m a researcher, a physician and a past global health resident at Brigham and Women's hospital. All of that fits in best here at CHP/PCOR. Stanford is a stellar academic institution and has a growing global health and development community,” Alsan said. “At PCOR, they do excellent research and have wide interests. There isn’t pressure to be narrowly focused on one topic or one publication style.”

Assistant Professor David Chan, who has a PhD in economics and training in internal medicine, will focus on how behavioral issues impact productivity in health care systems. 

"Dave is uniquely trained to study the productivity of  healthcare systems.  Given the extraordinary need to reduce costs and provide high-value care, we believe Dave’s work on health care productivity will be enormously important in understanding some of the most difficult challenges for medicine today," Owens said.

Chan’s current work includes studying the impact of whether doctors choosing which patients they see affects their patients’ health outcomes; the effects on patients’ health outcomes if a doctor sees them at the beginning or end of the doctor’s shift; and whether providing doctors financial incentives—e.g. linking the number of ultrasounds a doctor gives out to their pay—impacts patient health outcomes.

“The environment at the centers is just great for someone who’s multidisciplinary. It’s a small place but surrounded by so many great partners within walking distance -- the business school, economics department, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), the computer science department, and so on,” Chan said.  “It’s great to be back in California. I even bought a bike—I’ve never really ridden a bike this much!”