Philanthropist and software giant Bill Gates spoke to a Stanford audience last week about the importance of foreign aid and product innovation in the fight against chronic hunger, poverty and disease in the developing world.

His message goes hand-in-hand with the ongoing work of researchers at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Much of that work is supported by FSI’s Global Underdevelopment Action Fund, which provides seed grants to help faculty members design research experiments and conduct fieldwork in some of the world’s poorest places.

Four FSI senior fellows – Larry Diamond, Jeremy Weinstein, Paul Wise and Walter Falcon – respond to some of the points made by Gates and share insight into their own research and ideas about how to advance and secure the most fragile nations.

Without first improving people’s health, Gates says it’s harder to build good governance and reliable infrastructure in a developing country. Is that the best way to prioritize when thinking about foreign aid?

Larry Diamond: I have immense admiration for what Bill Gates is doing to reduce childhood and maternal fatality and improve the quality of life in poor countries.  He is literally saving millions of lives.  But in two respects (at least), it's misguided to think that public health should come "before" improvements in governance.  

First, there is no reason why we need to choose, or why the two types of interventions should be in conflict.  People need vaccines against endemic and preventable diseases – and they need institutional reforms to strengthen societal resistance to corruption, a sociopolitical disease that drains society of the energy and resources to fight poverty, ignorance, and disease.  

Second, good governance is a vital facilitator of improved public health.  When corruption is controlled, public resources are used efficiently and justly to build modern sanitation and transportation systems, and to train and operate modern health care systems.  With good, accountable governance, public health and life expectancy improve much more dramatically.  When corruption is endemic, life-saving vaccines, drugs, and treatments too often fall beyond the reach of poor people who cannot make under-the-table payments. 

Foreign aid has come under criticism for not being effective, and most countries have very small foreign aid budgets. How do you make the case that foreign aid is a worthy investment?

Jeremy M. Weinstein: While foreign aid may be a small part of most countries’ national budgets, global development assistance has increased markedly in the past 50 years. Between 2000 and 2010, global aid increased from $78 billion to nearly $130 billion – and the U.S. continues to be the world’s leading donor.

The challenge in the next decade will be to sustain high aid volumes given the economic challenges that now confront developed countries. I am confident that we can and will sustain these volumes for three reasons.

First, a strong core of leading voices in both parties recognizes that promoting development serves our national interest. In this interconnected world, our security and prosperity depend in important ways on the security and prosperity of those who live beyond our borders.

Second, providing assistance is a reflection of our values – it is these humanitarian motives that drove the unprecedented U.S. commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS during the Bush Administration.

Perhaps most importantly, especially in tight budget times, development agencies are learning a great deal about what works in foreign assistance, and are putting taxpayers’ dollars to better use to reduce poverty, fight disease, increase productivity, and strengthen governance – with increasing evidence to show for it.

Some of the most dire situations in the developing world are found in conflict zones. How can philanthropists and nongovernmental organizations best work in places with unstable governments and public health crises? Is there a role for larger groups like the Gates Foundation to play in war-torn areas?

Paul H. Wise: As a pediatrician, the central challenge is this: The majority of preventable child deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa and in much of the world occur in areas of political instability and poor governance. 

This means that if we are to make real progress in improving child health we must be able to enhance the provision of critical, highly efficacious health interventions in areas that are characterized by complex political environments – often where corruption, civil conflict, and poor public management are the rule. 

Currently, most of the major global health funders tend to avoid working in such areas, as they would rather invest their efforts and resources in supportive, well-functioning locations.  This is understandable. However, given where the preventable deaths are occurring, it is not acceptable. 

Our efforts are directed at creating new strategies capable of bringing essential services to unstable regions of the world.  This will require new collaborations between health professionals, global security experts, political scientists, and management specialists in order to craft integrated child health strategies that respect both the technical requirements of critical health services and the political and management innovations that will ensure that these life-saving interventions reach all children in need.

Gates says innovation is essential to improving agricultural production for small farmers in the poorest places. What is the most-needed invention or idea that needs to be put into place to fight global hunger?

Walter P. Falcon: No single innovation will end hunger, but widespread use of cell phone technology could help.

Most poor agricultural communities receive few benefits from agricultural extension services, many of which were decimated during earlier periods of structural reform. But small farmers often have cell phones or live in villages where phones are present.

My priority innovation is for a  $10 smart phone, to be complemented with a series of very specific applications designed for transferring knowledge about new agricultural technologies to particular regions.  Using the wiki-like potential of these applications, it would also be possible for farmers from different villages to teach each other, share critical local knowledge, and also interact with crop and livestock specialists.

Language and visual qualities of the applications would be key, and literacy problems would be constraining.  But the potential payoff seems enormous.

Young Stanford researchers focusing on improving health care access in developing countries are eligible for the Dr. George Rosenkranz Prize.

The $100,000 award is given to a non-tenured professor, post-doctoral student or research associate during a two-year period. The deadline to apply is May 11. The recipient will be announced in early June

Rosenkranz, who helped first synthesize Cortisone in 1951 and went on to synthesize progestin  – the active ingredient for the first oral birth control – dedicated his career to improving health care access around the world. Born in Hungary in 1916, the chemist started his career in Mexico and helped establish the Mexican National Institute for Genomic Medicine. He lives with his wife in Menlo Park.

The award is being funded by the Rosenkranz family and administered by Stanford Health Policy, a center within the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. It also is designed to give its recipients access to a network that will help them develop their careers.

Eran Bendavid, a SHP affiliate and Stanford Medical School instructor, received the first award in 2010 to support his analysis of whether money going to HIV and malaria programs in sub-Saharan Africa has improved the overall health of children and their mothers.

More application information is available at http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/fellowships/rosenkranz_prize.

With legal arguments at the Supreme Court over, the fate of the Obama administration's health care law is in the hands of the justices. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford Center for Health Policy core faculty member, explains how consumers could be affected.

Research led by by Stanford Health Policy's Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert shows treatments for hepatitis C are cost-effective for patients with advanced disease. Their results are based on a computer model of hepatitis C.

Douglas Owens, director of the Center for Health Policy at FSI and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research in the Department of Medicine and School of Medicine, has been appointed to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The task force is an independent, volunteer panel of 16 experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that makes recommendations and develops clinical guidelines for preventive services. They focus on issues including screening for breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, diabetes, drug and alcohol misuse, and hepatitis C.

“These guidelines are used widely, and they address important issues for our veterans, and for the nation at large,” said Owens, the associate director of the Center for Health Care Evaluation at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System and the Henry J. Kaiser Jr. Professor at Stanford.

“I look forward to working with the Task Force.”

 

As incomes rise around the world, health experts expect a more troubling figure to increase as well: the number of diabetics in developing countries.

In China and India – two of the world’s most populous nations with fast-paced economies – the prevalence of diabetes is expected to double by 2025. Between 15 and 20 percent of their adult population will develop the disease as household budgets increase, diets change to include more calories and new health problems emerge.

But China, India and other developing countries are not fully prepared to deal with the rising trend of diabetes. And a growing number of diabetics aren’t getting the care they need to prevent serious complications, Stanford researchers say.

Even with insurance, many diabetics don’t have essential medications that could help them manage their conditions. In many cases, people are spending a great deal of their household incomes to pay for their treatment, said Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, an assistant professor of medicine who led the research team.

“Public and private health insurance programs aren’t providing sufficient protection for diabetics in many developing countries,” said Goldhaber-Fiebert, a faculty member at Stanford Health Policy at the university’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. “People with insurance aren’t doing markedly better than those who don’t have it. Health insurance and health systems need to be re-oriented to better address chronic diseases like diabetes.”

Findings from the study are online and will be published in the Jan. 24 edition of Diabetes Care, the journal of the American Diabetes Association. The journal article was co-authored by Jay Bhattacharya, an associate professor of medicine and Stanford Health Policy faculty member; and Crystal Smith-Spangler, an instructor at Stanford’s Department of Medicine and an investigator at the Palo Alto VA Health Care System.

Failure to adequately manage diabetes will lead to more severe health problems like blindness, heart disease and kidney failure. It also harms the otherwise healthy, Goldhaber-Fiebert said.

Diabetes often strikes people at an age when they’re taking care of children and elderly parents. To sideline these primary caretakers as dependants will lead to a heavy burden for communities and create an obstacle for economic growth, he added.

Using responses to a global survey conducted by the World Health Organization in 2002 and 2003, Goldhaber-Fiebert and his colleagues examined data from 35 low- and middle-income countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe to determine whether diabetics with insurance were more likely to have medication than those without insurance.

They also wanted to know whether insured diabetics have a lower risk of “catastrophic medical spending,” a term the researchers define as spending more than 25 percent of a household income on medical care.

“Surprisingly, diabetics with insurance were no more likely to have the medications they need than uninsured diabetics,” Goldhaber-Fiebert said. “They were also no less likely to suffer catastrophic medical spending.”

There are many reasons why health insurance may not protect diabetics in developing countries against high out-of-pocket spending. In some cases, there’s a lack of sufficient medication – such as insulin – that regulate glucose levels. Without those drugs, there’s a greater risk of complications that often lead to more hospitalizations and more expenses.

In other cases, co-payments and deductibles are too high. Sometimes, drugs and medical services to prevent diabetes complications are not covered. And doctors and hospitals don’t always accept insurance.

“Better policies are needed to provide sufficient protection and care for diabetics in the developing world,” Goldhaber-Fiebert said.

Without medications to manage diabetes and prevent secondary complications, the condition will worsen and the burden of catastrophic spending will increase, he said.

“It’s important to get ahead of the curve and prepare so there’s an infrastructure in place to deal with these health and cost issues,” he said.

While preventing diabetes in the first place would be ideal, programs and policies must be established to care for the many cases that will surely continue to exist.

“There isn’t a single country that’s managed to entirely arrest or reverse the trend of diabetes,” he said. “Programs that focus on primary prevention are extremely important, but the reality is that the developing world faces hundreds of millions of diabetes cases that are unlikely to all be prevented.”