On October 30, the Program on Human Rights (PHR) at Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) held a day-long conference to examine health and human rights. The conference was held to discuss how a rights-based approach to health services can impact the delivery of effective health interventions and advance other socio-economic and cultural rights in developing regions. The conference titled, “Why We Should Care: Health and Human Rights” was divided into five panels with presenters from diverse backgrounds and professions including lawyers, doctors, public health experts, students and activists.

The Program:

The conference started with a welcoming address by Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights. CDDRL Director Larry Diamond introduced the keynote speaker Paul H. Wise, professor of child health and society and pediatrics at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, and director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes and Prevention. Wise's opening remarks began on a somber note, “The language of rights means very little to a child stillborn, an infant dying in pain from pneumonia or a child desiccated by famine.” In his address, Wise emphasized the need for an aligned and integrated rights-based approach that does not undermine effective and efficient medical interventions. “We need to fill the gap between the worlds of child health and child rights so that our programs and policies are both effective and just,” he stressed.

Following the keynote address, the conference presenters shared their work according to a geographic or thematic focus. The first panel brought together three generations of speakers from Stanford - a faculty member, a pre-doctoral fellow and a recent graduate - in a unique opportunity to share ideas and discuss possibilities of health work in Africa. Rebecca Walker, clinical instructor in emergency medicine at Stanford School of Medicine, presented her impressions and reactions on Mindy Roseman’s study of forced sterilization in Namibia. Roseman, academic director of the Human Rights Program and lecturer on law at Harvard Law School, was unable to attend due to flight complications after hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast.

Eric Kramon, 2011-2012 pre-doctoral fellow at CDDRL, spoke about the political sources of ethnic inequality in health outcomes in Africa.  Kramon’s work in Kenya illustrated how politics plays a determinant role in ethnic inequalities and consequently in access to health and health outcomes. Jeffrey Tran, a 2011 Stanford graduate in human biology, described the vision behind the launch of the Project of Emergency First Aid Responder in Western Cape Province, South Africa that he helped implement. Tran explained, “Individuals and communities are an integral part of the solution and we work with the communities to develop first aid training programs that are taught and eventually run by community members.”

Panel two was dedicated to the health impact of drones in Pakistan and in Gaza. Based on research by the Stanford International Clinic on Human Rights and Conflict Negotiation in Pakistan, Professor James Cavallaro and Stanford law school student Omar Shakir, explained that drones are not only responsible for deaths of civilians but also constitute a constant disturbance to social life and mental health of ordinary people, including their relations with children and the elderly. Drones impact other rights as well - such as the right to education - as children are prevented from attending schools for fear of drone strikes. Rajaie S. Batniji, resident physician in internal medicine at Stanford and a CDDRL affiliate, explained the clinical diagnosis of traumatic disorders that result from constant surveillance and insecurity. He cited the work of Jonathan Mann in defining dignity and the devastating effects on physical, mental, and social well-being when these senses are violated. Batniji explained that populations in Gaza are prevented from living life with dignity and respect because they live under constant threat to their security and intrusion into their homes and communications.

Vivek Srinivasan, manager of the Program on Liberation Technology at CDDRL, presented his experience on the Right to Food Campaign in India. He believes that this campaign has led to the mobilization for rights and the provision of services. “Not all demands are confrontational. Communities begin demanding something that is perceived as small in scope but have ramifications that extend to other rights such as the right to education, the right to housing and the right to work.” According to Srinivasan, the Right to Food Campaign in India has had a tremendous impact in putting hunger on the policy agenda. Suchi Pande, an activist-researcher who worked on the Right to Information Campaign in India for over seven years and was the secretary for the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information from 2006 to 2008, supported Srinivasan’s argument of strong correlation in achievements and right-based mobilization. However, Pande pointed out that despite successes in the Right to Food Campaign, other economic and social rights including the right to health in India continues to be a non-issue for politicians and the government. She is optimistic and believes that rural public hearings, the role of the right to information and its supporting mechanisms will facilitate access to public health in rural India.

In panel four, Sarah MacCarthy showed results that suggest that counseling and testing services for HIV-positive pregnant women remain limited, insufficient or lacking in quality in Salvador, Brazil. “While Brazil’s HIV/AIDS program has been internationally acclaimed, national practice still fails to meet national and global guidelines,” she explained. Calling attention to the regional discrepancies in the HIV/AIDS policy and program implementation in Brazil, Nadejda Marques, manager of the Program on Human Rights at CDDRL,, expressed concerns about the implementation of an HIV/AIDS program in a context of limited resources. “In Angola, counseling and voluntary testing units for HIV/AIDS don’t have drinking water or sanitary conditions to receive patients. They lack basic equipment for testing and data collection, there is a generalized shortage of doctors, and health care providers have no specific training on HIV/AIDS.” Despite this alarming situation, Marques explained that advocating for the rights of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Angola has put in evidence the failure of a heath system unable to provide even the most basic services to its population and has enabled mobilization in a context where human rights are routinely violated.

Ami Laws, adjunct associate professor of medicine at Stanford, described how a physician can provide services in collaboration with the judicial system to advance human rights. Laws is an expert witness on cases of torture survivors that require asylum status in the U.S. and has worked mainly with victims of torture in the Punjab region in India. Everaldo Lamprea, a JSD candidate at Stanford Law School and an assistant professor at Los Andes Law School in Bogotá, Colombia, spoke about his recent comparative study on health litigation in low and middle-income countries. The escalation of right-to-health litigation in these countries can have unexpected and harmful consequences to healthcare reforms and the enforceability of the right to health. In part, this is because significant financial resources are allocated to the litigation processes and not to the health system. In addition, while litigation can highlight gaps that exist in the health system that need regulation, countries have been very slow to adapt and adjust to these signals.

Next Steps:

A number of key ideas, questions and insights emerged from the conference including:

. How to identify an effective intervention that will also mobilize communities to advocate for its implementation?

. How to provide services to the more vulnerable populations without alienating a contingent that has access to basic health care services?

. What instruments can be used to share best practices among national healthcare systems?

. How do global priorities adapt to contexts of limited financial resources and human capital?

. How can punctual achievements in rights that guarantee access to health be expanded for the achievement of other social, economic and cultural rights?

The Program on Human Rights at CDDRL will continue to pursue a research agenda examining health and human rights following the conference and announced that it will be the thematic focus of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Speakers Series in 2014. The PHR is also actively seeking support for research projects that include a right to health component at the core of its academic investigation for the 2012-2013 academic year.

China’s demographic landscape is rapidly changing, and the government has responded by launching ambitious social and health service reforms to meet the changing needs of the country’s 1.3 billion people. This week, officials approved a five-year plan to develop a comprehensive nationwide social security network.

Karen Eggleston, the Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP) director and a Stanford Health Policy fellow, discusses the success of China’s health care reforms—including its recently established universal health care system—and the long road still ahead.

Why is the overall health and wellbeing of China’s population important globally?

There are many reasons why the health of China’s citizens matters within a larger global context. On the most basic level, China represents almost 20 percent of humanity. But it is also a major player in the world economy and it depends on having a healthy workforce, especially now that its population is aging more. The government’s ability to meet the needs of its underserved citizens contributes to a more productive and stable China, and works towards closing the huge gaps we see in human wellbeing across the world.

China also potentially offers a model for other developing countries, such as India, that may want to figure out how to make universal health coverage work at a tenth of the income of most of the countries that have put it into place before.

What are some of the biggest changes in China’s health care system since 1949?

One of the most significant changes is that China has achieved very basic universal health insurance coverage in a relatively short period of time.  

Throughout the Mao period (1949–1978) there was a health care system linked to the centrally planned economy, which provided a basic level of coverage via government providers with a lot of regional variation. When economic reform came in 1980, large parts of the system—particularly financing for insurance—collapsed. The majority of China’s citizens were uninsured during the past few decades of very rapid social and economic development.

China’s overall population is changing quite dramatically, which means it has different health care needs, such as treating chronic disease and caring for an increasingly elderly population. The central government is trying to establish a system of accessible primary care—a concept that China’s barefoot doctors helped to pioneer but that fell into disarray—and health services that fit these new needs. 

How does China’s basic health care system work? Are there segments of the population still not receiving adequate coverage and care?

China has had a system where people can select their own doctors. Patients usually want to go to clinics attached to the highest-reputation hospitals, but of course, when you are not insured you almost always by default go to where you can afford the care. “It is difficult to see the doctor, and it is expensive” has been the lament of patients in China, so an explicit goal of the health care reforms has been to address this.

The term “universal coverage” has different definitions. China initially put in place a form of insurance that only covers 20 or 30 percent of medical costs for the previously uninsured population, especially in rural areas. Benefits have expanded, but remain limited. As with the previous system, disparities in coverage still exist across the population. China not only has a huge population with huge economic differences, but within that there is a large migrant worker population. It is a challenge to figure out how to cover these citizens and how to provide them with access to better care. The government is quite aware there are segments of the population not receiving equal coverage, and it continues to strive to resolve the issue.  

What are the greatest innovations in China’s health care system in recent years?

One of the most remarkable things China has achieved is really its new health insurance system. Even if the current coverage is not particularly generous it is nearly universal, and mechanisms are put in place each year to provide more generous coverage. China is also working on strengthening its primary care and population health services, infusing a huge sum of government money into these efforts. It is the only developing country of its per-capita income that has achieved such results so far.

Interestingly, a lot of people assume China achieved its universal coverage by mandate, while in fact the central government did so by subsidizing the cost for local governments and individuals. This reduces the burden, for example, on poorer rural governments and residents, and is one innovative way China is trying to eliminate the disparity in access to care.

Eggleston has recently published a working paper on China’s health care reforms since the Mao era on the AHPP website, as well as an article in the Milken Institute Review.

Gordon Liu, a Chinese government advisor on health care and the executive director of Peking University’s Health Economics and Management Institute, spoke at Stanford on May 29 on the future of China’s health care system.