Armed conflict continues its brutal march in Syria, Yemen, Southeast Asia and South Sudan — to name a few of the international hotspots that contributed to an 11% increase in political violence around the world in 2018.

Nearly 10 million Yemenis are facing famine this year; Syria was the deadliest place on earth for civilians last year, with more than 7,100 fatalities.

Many of those killed — and even more who face starvation — are children. And that’s when Stanford professor of pediatrics Paul Wise finds it hard to stand on the sidelines. Wise, who has traveled to Guatemala annually for the last 40 years to treat children in rural communities, also travels to the frontlines of global calamities.

As part of a small team of physicians, Wise went to Mosul, the northern city in Iraq once controlled by ISIS, in 2017 to evaluate the World Health Organization-led system to treat civilians injured in the brutal battle for the city. 

Working with colleagues at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Wise has collaborated with the U.S. military, non-governmental organizations and the United Nations on the interaction of humanitarian and security challenges.

So, it should come as no surprise that the American Academy of Arts & Sciences — of which he is a member — recently appointed him and two other global health experts to lead a new initiative to develop new strategies to protect civilians, health care and cultural heritage in areas of extreme violence. 

The initiative, Rethinking the Humanitarian Health Response to Violence Conflict, will be a collaboration among political scientists, international human rights lawyers, physicians, academics and even the curators of major museums. They will develop strategies to prevent civilian harm and deliver critical health services in areas plagued by violent conflict, most notably in the Middle East, central and north Africa and parts of Asia. 

“We also want to address the humanitarian and protective frameworks that operate in areas that are extremely violent but wouldn’t necessarily be defined as being in armed conflict, like in the northern triangle of Central America. The human toll in these areas is at least as great as some of these other more traditionally defined areas,” Wise said.

Image

Another of those areas is Myanmar, where nearly 700,000 ethnic Rohingya Muslims have fled to neighboring Bangladesh amid sectarian violence in the northern Rakhine province, in what the United Nations calls a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”

Rethinking is also headed up by global health expert Jaime Sepulvedaof the University of California, San Francisco, and Jennifer M. Welsh, a global governance and security expert at   McGill University in Canada. Their work will result in a series of publications, blog posts, videos, podcasts and op-eds as a means to reach not only a general audience but also local and field-based humanitarian health providers. The initiative will also seek the engagement of those directly victimized by violence in the areas of greatest concern. 

“We will come up with new strategies to protect civilians and deal with their needs when protection fails in the real world,” Wise said. “The goal is to make a difference in the real world. That’s a much more ambitious goal of course, but it’s the only goal that’s worthy of this kind of initiative.” 

A professor of pediatrics in the Medical School and core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, Wise is also appointed in several international security programs at Stanford, including the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law,and the Center for International Security and Cooperation,and is a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Wise said he is particularly excited about the prospect of working with those who curate and protect cultural heritage sites and objects.

“The other thing about the American Academy of Arts & Sciences is that we are not just academics, but artists, musicians, novelists — and we expect to take full advantage of breaking out into these disciplines that aren’t normally part of these conversations,” Wise said.

When fire nearly toppled Notre Dame in Paris three months ago, Parisians gathered near the French Gothic cathedral to pray and to sing. When al-Qaida seized control of the North African country of Mali in 2012, a band of librarians undertook a dangerous mission to protect 350,000 centuries-old Arabic texts and smuggled them out of the library in Timbuktu.

At a recent meeting at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, Wise met with museum directors, archeologists and political scientists about the preservation of cultural heritage.

“It was very clear that there were enormous areas of overlap between the efforts to protect cultural heritage and the efforts to protect people,” he said. “They’re just pragmatically connected because when you start destroying things of cultural importance, it tends to be associated ultimately with atrocities against people.”

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.”

People today can generally expect to live longer and, in some parts of the world, healthier lives. The substantial increases in life expectancy underlying these global demographic shifts represent a human triumph over disease, hunger, and deprivation, but also pose difficult challenges across multiple sectors. Population aging will have dramatic effects on labor supply, patterns of work and retirement, family and social structures, healthcare services, savings, and, of course, pension systems and other social support programs used by older adults. Individuals, communities, and nations around the world must adapt quickly to the demographic reality facing us and design new approaches to financing the many needs that come with longer lives.

This imperative is the focus of a newly published special issue of The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, entitled Financing Longevity: The Economics of Pensions, Health and Long-term Care. The special issue collects articles originally written for and discussed at a conference that was dedicated to the same topic and held at Stanford in April 2017 to mark the tenth anniversary of APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP). The conference convened top experts in health economics and policy to examine empirical and theoretical research on a range of problems pertinent to the economics of aging from the perspective of sustainable financing for long lives. The economics of the demographic transition is one of the research areas that Karen Eggleston, APARC’s deputy director and AHPP director, studies. She co-edited the special issue with Anita Mukherjee, a Stanford graduate now assistant professor in the Department of Risk and Insurance at the Wisconsin School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The Financing Longevity conference was organized by The Next World Program, a Consortium composed of partners from Harvard University, Fudan University, Stanford University, and the World Demographic and Aging Forum, and was cosponsored by AHPP, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the Stanford Center on the Demography and Economics of Aging.

The contributions that originated from the conference and are collected in the Journal’s special issue cover comparative research on more than 30 European countries and 17 Latin American countries, as well as studies on Australia, the United States, India, China, and Japan. They analyze a variety of questions pertinent to financing longevity, including how pension structures may exacerbate existing social inequalities; how formal and informal insurance interact in securing long-term care needs; the ways in which the elderly cope with caregiving and cognitive decline; and what new approaches might help extend old-age financial security to those working outside the formal sector, which is a major concern in low-income countries.

Another challenge of utmost importance is the global pension crisis, caused due to committed payments that far exceed the saved resources. It is a problem that Eggleston and Mukherjee highlight in their introduction to the special issue. By 2050, they note, the pension gap facing the world’s eight largest pension systems is expected to reach nearly US $400 trillion. The problem cannot be ignored, as “the financial security of people leading longer lives is in serious jeopardy.” Indeed four of the eight research papers in the special issue shed light on pensions and inequality in income support for older adults. The other four research papers focus on health and its interaction with labor force participation, savings, and long-term care.

The issue also features two special contributions. The first is an interview with Olivia S. Mitchell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and worldwide expert on pensions and ageing. Mitchell explains the areas offering the most promise and excitement in her field; discusses ways to encourage delayed retirement and spur more saving; and suggests several priority areas for future research. The latter include applying behavioral insights to questions about retirement planning, improving financial literacy, and advancing innovations to help people imagine themselves at older ages and save more for their future selves.

The second unique contribution is a perspective on the challenges of financing longevity in Japan, based on the keynote address delivered at the 2017 Stanford conference by Mr. Hirotaka Unami, then senior Director for policy planning and research of the Minister’s secretariat of the Japan Ministry of Finance and currently deputy director general with the Ministry’s Budget Bureau.

In Japan, decades of improving life expectancy and falling birth rates have produced a rapidly aging and now shrinking population. Data released by Japan’s Statistics Bureau ahead of Children's Day on May 5, 2019 reveal that Japan’s child population (those younger than 15) ranks lowest among countries with a total population exceeding 40 million. In his piece, Unami focuses on the difficult tradeoffs Japan faces in responding to the increase in oldest-old population (people aged 75 and over) and the overall population decline. Japan aspires to do so through policies that are designed to restore financial sustainability for the country’s social security system, including the medical care and long-term care insurance systems.

Unami argues that Japan must simultaneously pursue a combination of increased tax revenues, reduced benefit growth, and accelerated economic growth. He notes that these three-pronged efforts require action in five areas: review Japan’s pension policies; reduce the scope of insurance coverage in low-risk areas; increase the effectiveness of health service providers; increase a beneficiary’s burden according to their means; and enhance policies for preventive health care for the elderly.

The aging of our world’s population is a defining issue of our time and there is pressing need for research to inform policies intended to improve the financial well-being of present and future generations. The articles collected in the Financing Longevity special issue and the ongoing work by APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program point to multiple areas ripe for such future research.

View the complete special issue >>

Learn more about Dr. Karen Eggleston’s work in the area of innovation for healthy aging >>

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.

Most studies that look at whether democracy improves global health rely on measurements of life expectancy at birth and infant mortality rates. Yet those measures disproportionately reflect progress on infectious diseases — such as malaria, diarrheal illnesses and pneumonia — which relies heavily on foreign aid.

A new study led by Stanford Health Policy's Tara Templin and the Council on Foreign Relations suggests that a better way to measure the role of democracy in public health is to examine the causes of adult mortality, such as noncommunicable diseases, HIV, cardiovascular disease and transportation injuries. Little international assistance targets these noncommunicable diseases. 

When the researchers measured improvements in those particular areas of public health, the results proved dramatic.

“The results of this study suggest that elections and the health of the people are increasingly inseparable,” the authors wrote.

A paper describing the findings was published today in The Lancet. Templin, a graduate student in the Department of Health Research and Policy, shares lead authorship with Thomas Bollyky, JD, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Democratic institutions and processes, and particularly free and fair elections, can be an important catalyst for improving population health, with the largest health gains possible for cardiovascular and other noncommunicable diseases,” the authors wrote.

Templin said the study brings new data to the question of how governance and health inform global health policy debates, particularly as global health funding stagnates.

“As more cases of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and cancers occur in low- and middle-income countries, there will be a need for greater health-care infrastructure and resources to provide chronic care that weren’t as critical in providing childhood vaccines or acute care,” Templin said.

Image

Free and fair elections for better health

In 2016, the four mortality causes most ameliorated by democracy — cardiovascular disease, tuberculosis, transportation injuries and other noncommunicable diseases — were responsible for 25 percent of total death and disability in people younger than 70 in low- and middle-income countries. That same year, cardiovascular diseases accounted for 14 million deaths in those countries, 42 percent of which occurred in individuals younger than 70.

Over the past 20 years, the increase in democratic experience reduced mortality in these countries from cardiovascular disease, other noncommunicable diseases and tuberculosis between 8-10 percent, the authors wrote.

“Free and fair elections appear important for improving adult health and noncommunicable disease outcomes, most likely by increasing government accountability and responsiveness,” the study said.

The researchers used data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study; V-Dem; and Financing Global Health databases. The data cover 170 countries from 1970 to 2015.

What Templin and her co-authors found was democracy was associated with better noncommunicable disease outcomes. They hypothesize that democracies may give higher priority to health-care investments.

HIV-free life expectancy at age 15, for example, improved significantly — on average by 3 percent every 10 years during the study period — after countries transitioned to democracy. Democratic experience also explains significant improvements in mortality from cardiovascular disease, tuberculosis, transportation injuries, cancers, cirrhosis and other noncommunicable diseases, the study said.

Watch: Some of the authors of the study discuss the significant their findings: 

What Templin and her co-authors found was democracy was associated with better noncommunicable disease outcomes. They hypothesize that democracies may give higher priority to health-care investments.

HIV-free life expectancy at age 15, for example, improved significantly — on average by 3 percent every 10 years during the study period — after countries transitioned to democracy. Democratic experience also explains significant improvements in mortality from cardiovascular disease, tuberculosis, transportation injuries, cancers, cirrhosis and other noncommunicable diseases, the study said.

Foreign aid often misdirected

And yet, this connection between fair elections and global health is little understood.

“Democratic government has not been a driving force in global health,” the researchers wrote.  “Many of the countries that have had the greatest improvements in life expectancy and child mortality over the past 15 years are electoral autocracies that achieved their health successes with the heavy contribution of foreign aid.”

They note that Ethiopia, Myanmar, Rwanda and Uganda all extended their life expectancy by 10 years or more between 1996 and 2016. The governments of these countries were elected, however, in multiparty elections designed so the opposition could only lose, making them among the least democratic nations in the world.

Yet these nations were among the top two-dozen recipients of foreign assistance for health.

Only 2 percent of the total development assistance for health in 2016 was devoted to noncommunicable diseases, which was the cause of 58 percent of the death and disability in low-income and middle-income countries that same year, the researchers found.

“Although many bilateral aid agencies emphasize the importance of democratic governance in their policy statements,” the authors wrote, “most studies of development assistance have found no correlation between foreign aid and democratic governance and, in some instance, a negative correlation.”

Autocracies such as Cuba and China, known for providing good health care at low cost, have not always been as successful when their populations’ health needs shifted to treating and preventing noncommunicable diseases. A 2017 assessment, for example, found that true life expectancy in China was lower than its expected life expectancy at birth from 1980 to 2000 and has only improved over the past decade with increased government health spending. In Cuba, the degree to which its observed life expectancy has exceeded expectations has decreased, from four-to-seven years higher than expected in 1970 to three-to-five years higher than expected in 2016.

“There is good reason to believe that the role that democracy plays in child health and infectious diseases may not be generalizable to the diseases that disproportionately affect adults,” Bollyky said. Cardiovascular diseases, cancers and other noncommunicable diseases, according to Bollyky, are largely chronic, costlier to treat than most infectious diseases, and require more health care infrastructure and skilled medical personnel.  

The researchers hypothesize that democracy improves population health because:

1. When enforced through regular, free and fair elections, democracies should have a greater incentive than autocracies to provide health-promoting resources and services to a larger proportion of the population;
2. Democracies are more open to feedback from a broader range of interest groups, more protective of media freedom and might be more willing to use that feedback to improve their public health programs;
3. Autocracies reduce political competition and access to information, which might deter constituent feedback and responsive governance.

Various studies have concluded that democratic rule is better for population health, but almost all of them have focused on infant and child mortality or life expectancy at birth.

Over the past 20 years, the average country’s increase in democracy reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease by roughly 10 percent, the authors wrote. They estimate that more than 16 million cardiovascular deaths may have been averted due to an increase in democracy globally from 1995 to 2015. They also found improvements in other health burdens in the countries where democracy has taken hold: an 8.9 percent reduction in deaths from tuberculosis, a 9.5 percent drop in deaths from transportation injuries and a 9.1 percent mortality reduction in other noncommunicable disease, such as congenital heart disease and congenital birth defects.

“This study suggests that democratic governance and its promotion, along with other government accountability measures, might further enhance efforts to improve population health,” the study said. “Pretending otherwise is akin to believing that the solution to a nation’s crumbling roads and infrastructure is just a technical schematic and cheaper materials.”

The other researchers who contributed to the study are Matthew Cohen, Diana Schoder, Joseph Dieleman and Simon Wigley, from CFR, the University of Washington-Seattle and Bilkent University in Turkey, respectively.

Funding for the research came from Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Stanford’s Department of Health Research and Policy also supported the work.

Last month, He Jiankui, a Chinese researcher, announced the birth of the world’s first gene-edited babies, whose DNA had been edited to reduce the risk of HIV infection. While the claim has not yet been verified, Chinese authorities have launched an investigation and ordered this researcher’s work to stop. In the discussion that follows, Stanford Law Professor Hank Greely, an expert in the ethical, legal, and social implications of new biomedical technologies, and a Stanford Health Policy Fellow, discusses the legal and ethical questions surrounding the new world of gene-editing.

First, can you explain what the Chinese researcher, He Jiankui, did?

I’ll try but, first, we don’t know whether He Jiankui** did anything except make YouTube videos and give a talk. There has been no independent verification that these babies exist, let alone that he edited their genes. It would be a very bold fraud, but bold frauds have been carried out before in bioscience, including, notably, Hwang Woo-Suk’s false claim in 2004-05 that he had successfully cloned human embryos.

Assuming He Jiankui did what he said he did, he used a fantastic new DNA editing tool called CRISPR (“Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats”) in human embryos very shortly after the eggs were fertilized. His goal was to change a gene called CCR5. This gene makes a protein that sits on the outside of some our white blood cells, crucial to the immune system, called T cells. There is good evidence that T cells that lack CCR5 cannot be (or cannot easily be) infected with HIV; about 1% of Northern Europeans (and a smaller percentage of people elsewhere) have a particular change in their CCR5 gene that deleted 32 base pairs (“letters”) in the DNA sequence and they do not seem to get HIV infections. So, his stated goal was to provide these embryos (and the babies, teenagers, and adults they turn into) with immunity from HIV infection. The data he released, however, shows that one of the twins only had half of her cells modified. If half of her T cells have CCR5, she could still be HIV infected. The other twin had all of her cells changed but not in the way He Jiankui intended, and not in the way found in people. We have no idea whether she will be immune, wholly or partially, from HIV infection.

Is it legal in the U.S.—or anywhere? If not, why?

It is not legal in the U.S. The FDA takes the position, which I think courts would most likely uphold, that genetically altered human embryos are either drugs or biological products (or both) and so under its jurisdiction. It is illegal—a federal crime—to distribute a new drug without FDA approval. The FDA has not approved genome editing for embryos for clinical use. For research uses only, you can get FDA permission more easily. You need to submit an application to the FDA for what’s called an Investigation New Drug (IND) exemption. You need to show the FDA that there is good reason, based on non-human research, that this will not be too risky for the research participants and that there is a reasonable chance it will be effective. His work would not satisfy either side of this and so would not get an IND.

But that’s not relevant right now because since December 2015 Congress has regularly added an amendment to the FDA’s funding bill, prohibiting it from even considering any application, of any kind, for human germline editing. So, if you did this in the US now, you’d be doing it without FDA approval, which would make your use an illegal distribution of a new drug.

In many other countries, particularly in Europe, any germline human genome editing is illegal by specific statute (which it is not in the U.S.). In most countries there is no law on this—many poor countries have other things to worry about—so it is legal (at least, not specifically illegal) in most countries.

What are the dangers? What are the potential benefits?

One danger to the children is that CRISPR might have caused damage to other parts of their DNA. These so-called off-target effects are fairly common when CRISPR is used. In addition to changes in other parts of the genome, we know that He Jiankui did not accurately make the changes he aimed for in the CCR5 gene; it’s possible that the He Jiankui-modified gene would not only be ineffective at preventing HIV but affirmatively harmful.

A second danger is that life without a working CCR5 gene may have its own problems. The Northern Europeans without it include adults and appear healthy but they haven’t been closely followed to see if they are at higher risk for other problems. There is some early evidence, for example, that they might be more susceptible to West Nile Virus and influenza.

The potential benefit to the babies is HIV immunity but it is of very little weight. One twin cannot be immune because half of her cells have CCR5. The other may not be immune. And both are “saved” from the possibility, probably small, that they would become infected after being exposed to HIV (probably several decades in the future). HIV is already a manageable disease (though certainly not fun); we have no idea how easily preventable or treatable it may be in 20 years.

The potential benefit to science/medicine is showing that CRISPR’d babies can be born but if that is worth establishing, it could and should be done in a different setting, with an embryo with a very serious disease for which no good alternative exists.

When might it become legal? 

It could become legal any time Congress lets the appropriations rider lapse (next fall) and FDA decided there was enough safety information to allow it to proceed. I expect that neither of those will happen anytime soon.

When/if it does, would it be governed or overseen by an international organization? How might it be regulated? 

Highly unlikely. In the U.S. it will be overseen by FDA and local IRBs. Not perfect but not terrible.

What are the ethical challenges we’ll face when it does become legal?

For me, really not much. The safety issues for the kids are key. Apart from that, based on our current knowledge of human genetics, there are very few situations where gene editing in embryos will be better than embryo selection. We don’t know enough to make super babies and are unlikely to anytime soon. For some people doing any genetic editing that could pass down to future generations is itself a major ethical issue, a “line in the sand” we should not pass. As I have written elsewhere, I don’t think that’s right. See https://leapsmag.com/much-ado-about-nothing-much-crispr-for-human-embryo-editing/

What legal issues do you anticipate?

If this is tried before it is legal, I would expect federal criminal charges against the clinics/scientists. That might raise the question of whether a gene-modified human embryo really is a drug or biological device for purposes of FDA law. If this is tried after it is legal and it goes wrong, big malpractice suits. If it gets used under appropriate regulation, not much.

___

Hank Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences, Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics, Stanford School of Medicine, Chair of the Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics. And Director of the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society.

** He Jiankui was a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford in the laboratory of Prof. Stephen Quake from January 2011 to January 2012. His work in the Quake lab focused on computational analysis and was in no way related to gene-editing.

Suhani Jalota was only 20 years old when she established a foundation to help impoverished women in the slums of her native city, Mumbai. She was 23 when Forbes named her one of Asia’s 30-Under-30 Social Entrepreneurs as her foundation was taking off.

Now, at the ripe old age of 24, she is embarking on her pursuit of a PhD in health policy on the econ track at Stanford Medicine’s Department of Health Research and Policy.

As a social entrepreneur, she is hoping to create self-sustaining health organizations managed entirely by the people in the low-income communities they serve.

Last year, Jalota, who is also in the first cohort of Knight-Hennessy Scholars, received the Queen’s Young Leader award from Queen Elizabeth II and attended the royal wedding of Prince Harry and American actress Meghan Markle, who is now Duchess of Sussex.

The Myna Mahila Foundation— which provides affordable sanitary products and promotes employment and empowerment among women in Mumbai’s slums — was the only non-UK charity chosen to receive donations in lieu of gifts for the royal couple.

Stanford Health Policy caught up with Jalota to ask her a few questions about what inspires her and how she became so passionate about sanitary health and empowering women in India.

Who inspired you to become social-entrepreneur at such a young age?

I come from a government family and, growing up, our conversations at home were always about the development of India and the status of women. My father is an Indian civil servant who has worked on water sanitation for the city; my mom works with underprivileged girl children, and my brother creates water filters for the same slum community. My grandparents were in the police. It’s just what we do. It’s our family calling. 

As for entrepreneurship, it was Duke University, the Baldwin Scholars Program and the Melissa and Doug Entrepreneurship Fellowship that actually made me believe that all the dreams I had to change the pitiful state of things on the ground in Mumbai could actually be achievable. There I learned to translate the problems I saw to actionable items that the institution was willing to back and support endlessly.

Then in 2011, I met Dr. Jockin Arputham, who spent 40 years working in the slums of Mumbai as the founder of Slum Dwellers International. He became my inspiration, my idol and my mentor. He singlehandedly improved the lives of millions of women.

Dr. Arputham passed away in October. I am here to complete this mission.

Image

What inspired you to establish the Myna Mahila Foundation? 

When I started spending more time with women in the slum communities they told me horrific stories about living on the railway tracks, children dying in front of them, and not being able to walk the public toilets without being sexually harassed. Some were taking pills to constipate themselves just so they did not have to go to the public toilet. Others would tell me how they had been married off at 12 and were still living with drunk husbands who beat them every day. 

Women were ignoring their own health and it really struck me as how this would lead to such wasted potential for the women, and for India.

The slum community leaders and I began brainstorming — we became very chatty. That’s where the name comes from. Myna from the chatty South Asian bird and Mahila, which means women in Hindi. And we found that their menstrual cycles were physically and mentally exhausting. We found that sanitation and hygiene were clear signals of dignity for women, so we jumped on that.

You see, 320 million women in India do not have access to sanitary pads. And menstruation in India is a taboo health topic; there is a stigma to shopping for sanitary pads. Most women use rags on their periods and these often become dirty, leading to urinary and vaginal infections.

When you are trapped under an aluminum roof where your horizon is the lining of the slum settlement, and you only see limitations ahead of you, it is difficult to see another way of life. After more than six years of working on sanitation and health research with these women, I realized the problems lay deeply entrenched in a woman’s lack of agency, or ability to make decisions. You are brought up to think that what the generations ahead of you have been doing is the only way of life. Hiding your periods, not cooking food or sleeping with the family during your periods, not going to the temple or playing sports — you believe this is the only way to live.

So we came up with a scheme to sell sanitary pads door-to-door to women who would normally not leave their homes or go to a pharmacy to buy them from male clerks. And we get to know these women; they are opening up and exploring things outside the confines of their husbands’ world. I learned that if women were confident to talk about their periods and menstrual hygiene, it could break the silence surrounding domestic violence or sanitation.

Tell us about the women who work for you and the women you serve. 

We employ women from the slum communities we serve, including the accountants, production and sales managers, and the education trainers. We work mostly with Muslim women as that is a representation of the demographics of the communities we are in.

We currently meet about 10,000 women at their doorsteps every month in the 12 slums across Mumbai. It’s not about giving out free pads — a woman gets her period 450 times in her lifetime, so what we’re trying to do is make sure that she understands that it’s a normal health cycle that should not stop her from getting her education and jobs. We have more than 500 girls in our sponsor a girl program, with 100 more girls joining every month. We hold individual counseling and mentorship for these girls along with menstrual hygiene workshops at health camps. We employ 20 women and have partnerships with self-help groups across the city who work with us part-time.

Image

In the words of my mentor Dr. Arputham, it’s not our purpose to tell the women in the slums what to do; you must think about it from their perspective of what they need and help them create their own change. This has been my mission ever since.

We have millions of NGOs in India so you realize that if things are not really improving at a national level, then there’s something that we’re not doing right. We need the civic mindset to marry the efficiency of the business world. This makes people less dependent and more autonomous to be in control of their own situations. And that comes with a sense of pride.

Why focus on health and sanitation?

We are still struggling with the basics in India: basic health, which includes food, housing, potable water and improved sanitation. Numerous research studies have demonstrated that improvements in sanitation have led to dramatic improvements in health, such as life expectancy outcome measures. Unless we have basic health standards achieved, we will remain behind. To add to the problem, health-care is often deprioritized in India. While it accounts for nearly 18 percent of the GDP here in the United States, for example, it only accounts for 1 percent in India. Can you imagine that? With more than 1 billion people. The role of the public sector in India is to get people on the same level playing field with the basics: education, health care so you’re well enough to go to school or work, find food, shelter and water.

India is a true democracy — so if people start to recognize the importance of health and demand better health care, they can get it. 

What are your goals for the PhD?

To learn more research techniques to use for conducting experiments on the ground for a variety of topics, including women’s demand for health care, effects of positions of power in seeking health care, and the connection between environment and health. On the supply side, I am becoming increasingly interested in understanding pay-for-performance incentive structures in health institutions and for front-line health workers.

I will also be spending my December breaks and summers in India working at the foundation. After my second year, I hope to continue data collection for my dissertation topic: the effect of environmental changes on health outcomes, such as child stunting levels in the slums. As part of my undergrad thesis, I collected anthropometric data on 880 children to look at the effect of slum redevelopment (when the government forcibly relocates people from slums to government subsidized housing) on child stunting. I learned that when a child has one additional year in the buildings — instead of out in the slums with no toilets and clean water and proper ventilation — they were less likely to be stunted. The effect was even more pronounced (and significant) for children moving from slums without toilets than for children moving from slums with toilets.

Another area of research for me moving forward is how this plays out if a pregnant mother gives birth in the slums or the building. Is that affecting the child’s birth weight? Is water quality, sanitation, population density — have other health outcomes actually improved?

You could have gone anywhere for your PhD. Why Stanford?

The Knight Hennessy Scholars Program — that was a very compelling pull. Further, I think that being at Stanford gives you this additional advantage of having access to really positive technology like Virtual Reality — giving people exposure to a different world. We want people to demand better health care, so if they can experience what it feels like to walk into a hospital and a clean waiting room with a bench and a trash can, it can change their concept of what they deserve. I’m really excited to learn more about how new technologies can be applied in the slums to prompt people to stand up and demand better for themselves.

I took two women who work at Myna Mahila with me to the royal wedding. These are women who come from the slums — and what impressed them most was the cleanliness. They couldn’t believe how people could keep everything so clean. If more women see this through VR, they will start to think that this world should become theirs too. We have access to thousands of women and if we can teach menstrual hygiene education through this technology — well, as an entrepreneur, I get very excited about this. This is just one of the many technologies I want to learn more about and see if they can be applied in the slums.

Image

What did you make of Meghan Markle’s visit to the foundation in January 2017?

When she came to visit she told us she would support us in any way that she could. She kept her word. For us being chosen as one of seven charities for the royal wedding, I thought to myself, oh my God, she really thinks that we’re on to something that could actually change the world for many women. I feel like I have a huge responsibility to live up to their expectations. Now we have to keep our word to them and help women meet their true potential.

The two-day forum, part of a project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, led by the Freeman Spogli Institute’s Karl Eikenberry and Stephen Krasner, gathered experts to examine trends in civil wars and solutions moving forward.   

Image

The Council on Foreign Relations presently tracks six countries in a state of civil war, including three (South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Yemen) where the situation is currently worsening. Furthermore, three states (Central African Republic, Myanmar, and Nigeria) are experiencing sectarian violence with the potential to become larger conflicts. With two months still remaining in 2018, the combined fatalities in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen alone is fast approaching 100,000 for the year.

It was against this backdrop that Shorenstein APARC’s U.S.-Asia Security Initiative (USASI), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), and the School for International Studies at Peking University recently co-hosted the security workshop “Civil Wars, Intrastate Violence, and International Responses.” Held in Beijing, on October 22-23, the workshop brought together thirty-five U.S. and international experts to gain a wider perspective on intrastate violence and consider the possibilities for, and limits of, intervention. The workshop is the latest activity of the AAAS project on Civil Wars, Violence, and International Responses, chaired by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, director of USASI, and by Stephen Krasner, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and professor of international relations.

“Some of the major discussion topics included the appropriate political and economic development models to apply to fragile states recovering from internal conflict, justifications for intervention, and the likely impact of great power competition on the future treatment of civil wars." - Karl Eikenberry

Workshop participants included academics and professionals with expertise in political science, global health, diplomacy, refugee field work, United Nations, and the military. Countries represented at the table included the United States, Ethiopia, France, and China. Throughout the two-day session, they examined three crucial questions: What is the scope of intrastate conflicts and civil wars, and to what extent is it attributable to domestic or international factors? What types of threats to global security emanate from state civil wars? What policy options are available to regional powers and the international community to deal with such threats?

Image

USASI Director Karl Eikenberry addresses one of the sessions

China’s Emerging Role in Addressing Intrastate Violence

The workshop’s timing and location was prescient. Over the past two decades, China’s global exposure–through trade, investment, and financing–has increased dramatically. Coupled with a growing number of its citizens living abroad, China’s equity in other states has reached the point where it has a direct interest in those experiencing or are at risk of political instability and internal violence. Indeed, through its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, China has the opportunity to help stabilize fragile states by stimulating economic development.

“The workshop revealed, at least for me, that China is backing away from its absolute defense of sovereignty and non-intervention,” said Stephen Krasner. “As Chinese interests have expanded around the world, and as both its investments and the number of its citizens living abroad have increased, the Chinese have become more concerned with political conditions in weakly governed countries.”

With China’s growing policy and academic interests in addressing civil wars and intrastate violence, as well as its higher international profile in places like United Nations peacekeeping operations, the Beijing event provided an excellent opportunity for Chinese experts to exchange views with their international colleagues.

Paul H. Wise, MD, MPH; Senior Fellow at Stanford Health Policy

Where We are Today, Where We Go Tomorrow

The Beijing workshop was arranged into four sessions, with themes focusing on trends in intrastate violence, the threats it poses to international security, the limits of intervention, and advice to policymakers.

Each panel included presentations of prepared papers, moderator comments, and an open discussion by all participants. A fifth and final session provided an opportunity to summarize the preceding discussions. The workshop then closed out with an open conversation, where participants offered insight and policy recommendations developed over the preceding two days of dialogue.

Image

The "Civil Wars, Intrastate Violence, and International Responses” workshop marks the second phase of the AAAS project by the same name that launched in 2015. The first phase of the project culminated in the publication of 28 essays across two volumes of the AAAS quarterly journal Dædalus. The ongoing second phase consists of a series of roundtables and workshops in which project participants engage with academics and with government and international organization officials to build a larger conceptual understanding of the threats posed by the collapse of state authority associated with civil wars, and to contribute to current policymaking. Project activities have included meetings with the United Nations leadership and staff; academic activities in the United States; sessions with the U.S. executive and legislative branches; and a visit to Nigeria.

Throughout the workshop, Chatham House Rule of non-attribution applied to all dialogue. A workshop report will be published by the co-hosts in early 2019.

The U.S.-Asia Security Initiative is part of Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). Led by former U.S. Ambassador and Lieutenant General (Retired) Karl Eikenberry, USASI seeks to further research, education, and policy relevant dialogues at Stanford University on contemporary Asia-Pacific security issues.

March 1, 2019 update: the workshop report is now available online. Download the report >> 

Participants in the “Civil Wars, Intrastate Violence, and International Responses” workshop

Stanford Health Policy's Paul Wise held a conversation with Dr. Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank Group about improving the health of the poorest communities around the world. The two old friends talked about their work and the keys to accomplishing big goals during the Conversation in Global Health event. Wise is a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy and the Center for Innovation in Global Health, as well as a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Learn More 

The number of deaths due to poor-quality health care is estimated to be five times higher than the annual global deaths from HIV/AIDS — and three times more than deaths from diabetes.

That amounts to 5 million deaths per year in 137 low- and middle-income countries as a result of poor-quality care, with a further 3.6 million lives lost due to insufficient access to care, according to the first study to quantify the burden of poor-quality health systems worldwide.

The findings come from a new analysis published in The Lancet, as part of The Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems. The commission was a two-year project that brought together 30 academics, policymakers and health-systems experts from 18 countries who examined how to measure and improve health system quality worldwide. Its final report was published in The Lancet Global Health.

“As efforts to expand universal health coverage continue to drive the global health agenda, these numbers remind us that addressing the quality of health systems must be a top priority,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Joshua Salomon, a professor of medicine, member of the commission, and senior author on The Lancet study.

“Increasing access to health care continues to be critically important, but we find that there is also a tremendous opportunity to do a better job at caring for those who are already accessing the health system.”

To quantify the burden of poor-quality health care, the authors analysed data for 61 different health conditions and computed the "excess mortality" found among patients in low- and middle-income countries – that is, the additional risk of death in those countries compared to corresponding risks in high-income countries with strong health systems. Among the 5 million deaths attributed to receipt of poor-quality care, 1.9 million, or nearly 40 percent, occurred in the South Asia region, which includes India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.     

The commission, in an extensive report on its overall findings and recommendations, found systematic deficits in quality of care in multiple countries, across a range of health conditions and in both primary and hospital care. These include:

1. The over 8 million excess deaths due to poor-quality health systems lead to economic welfare losses of $6 trillion in 2015 alone.
2. Poor-quality is a major driver of deaths amenable to health care across all conditions in low- and middle-income countries, including 84 percent of cardiovascular deaths, 81 percent of vaccine preventable diseases, 61 percent of neonatal conditions — and half of maternal, road injury, tuberculosis, HIV and other infectious disease deaths.  
3. Approximately 1 million deaths from neonatal conditions and tuberculosis occurred in people who used the health system, but received poor care.

“Quality care should not be the purview of the elite, or an aspiration for some distant future; it should be the DNA of all health systems,” said Commission Chair Margaret E. Kruk of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 

“The human right to health is meaningless without good quality care. High quality health systems put people first. They generate health, earn the public’s trust, and can adapt when health needs change,” Kruk said. “Countries will know they are on the way towards high-quality, accountable health systems when health workers and policymakers choose to receive health care in their own public institutions.”

Image

The commissioners used data from more than 81,000 consultations in 18 countries and found that, on average, mothers and children receive less than half of the recommended clinical actions in a typical visit, including failures to do postpartum check-ups, incorrect management of diarrhoea or tuberculosis, and failures to monitor blood pressure during labor.

And perhaps not surprising, poor-quality care is more common among the most vulnerable.

The wealthiest women attending antenatal care are four times more likely to report blood pressure measurements, and urine and blood tests compared to the poorest women; adolescent mothers are less likely to receive evidence-based care; and children from wealthier families are more likely to receive antibiotics. People with stigmatized health conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, mental health and substance abuse disorders, as well as other vulnerable groups such as refugees, prisoners and migrants are less likely to receive high quality care. 

“Given our findings, it is not surprising that only one quarter of people in low- and middle-income countries believe that their health systems work well,” Kruk said. 

The right to high quality care

In an accompanying editorial by The Lancet, the editors acknowledge that expansion of universal health coverage remains essential, but that without high quality health-care systems, universal care “will be an abstract and meaningless myth.”

The commission proposes several ways to address health system quality, starting with public accountability for and transparency on health system performance. 

It found many current improvement approaches have had limited effects. Additionally, commonly used health system metrics, such as availability of medicines, equipment or the proportion of births with skilled attendants, do not reflect quality of care and might lead to false complacency about progress.

The commission calls for fewer, but better measurements of health systems quality, and proposes a dashboard of metrics that should be implemented in counties by 2021 to enable transparent measurement and reporting of quality care.

“The vast epidemic of low-quality care suggests there is no quick fix, and policymakers must commit to reforming the foundations of health care systems,” said Muhammad Pate, co-chair of the commission and former minister of state for health in Nigeria.

“This includes adopting a clear quality strategy, organizing services to maximize outcomes, not access alone, modernizing health-worker education, and enlisting the public in demanding better quality care,” Pate said.

“For too long, the global health discourse has been focused on improving access to care, without sufficient emphasis on high quality care,” he said. “Providing health services without guaranteeing a minimum level of quality is ineffective, wasteful and unethical.”