It’s always great to see the work of one of our researchers shouted out in the New York Times. It’s even better when it becomes the scientific basis of an argument thrown into the mix of a presidential campaign.

Nicholas Kristof asserted in his column on Sunday that when women are involved in the political process and given the capacity to shape public policy, everyone benefits, particularly when it comes to health.

Kristof, who covers human rights, women’s rights, health and global affairs for the Times, wrote in his column:

Put aside your feelings about Hillary Clinton: I understand that many Americans distrust her and would welcome a woman in the White House if it were someone else. But whatever one thinks of Clinton, her nomination is a milestone, and a lesson of history is that when women advance, humanity advances.

Grant Miller of Stanford University found that when states, one by one, gave women the right to vote at the local level in the 19th and early 20th centuries, politicians scrambled to find favor with female voters and allocated more funds to public health and child health. The upshot was that child mortality rates dropped sharply and 20,000 children’s lives were saved each year.

Many of those whose lives were saved were boys. Today, some are still alive, elderly men perhaps disgruntled by the cavalcade of women at the podium in Philadelphia. But they should remember that when women gained power at the voting booth, they used it to benefit boys as well as girls.

Miller, an associate professor of medicine and core faculty member of Stanford Health Policy, first wrote about this issue in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2008, arguing that women’s choices appear to emphasize child welfare more than those of men.

He presented evidence on how state-to-state suffrage rights for U.S. women from 1869 to the adoption of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which gave all women the right to vote, helped children benefit from scientific breakthroughs.

Image

Simple hygienic practices — including hand and food washing, boiling water and milk, refrigerating meat and the renewed emphasis on breastfeeding — were among the most important innovations in the 19th and early 20th centuries to help protect children from often-fatal diseases such typhoid fever, smallpox, measles and scarlet fever.

“Communicating their importance to the American public required large-scale door-to-door hygiene campaigns, which women championed at first through voluntary organizations and then through government,” explained Miller, who is also a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

As women became more and more involved in state and federal politics, Miller found, child mortality declined by 8 to 15 percent, or 20,000 fewer child deaths each year.

“Public health historians clearly link the success of hygiene campaigns to the rising influence of women,” Miller wrote, citing examples with data and graphs.

That women have been — and can be — so influential seems like a no-brainer, but it’s nice to have the science to back it up.

A key concern weighing heavily on those attending this week’s global conference on AIDS is the diminishing donor support to fight the communicable disease, which has claimed an estimated 35 million lives since the beginning of the epidemic.

“That’s on everybody’s mind now — how to continue facing the epidemic with the shrinking resources,” said Eran Bendavid, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy and assistant professor at Stanford Medicine attending the conference in Durban, South Africa.

Donor government funding to support HIV efforts in low- and middle-income countries fell for the first time in 2015, decreasing from $8.6 billion in 2014 to $7.5 billion last year, according to a new report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and UNAIDS.

Funding for HIV treatment declined for 13 of 14 major donor governments, with the U.S. continuing to provide more donor funding for HIV than any other country or organization.

“There’s a sense of panic about how we’re going to fill the shortfall in funding,” Bendavid said. “All the major donors are here, PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and everyone is saying `We need more to continue the fight.’

“But, in my mind,” Bendavid continued, “the conversation that is mostly missing is the one between the organizations on the front lines and the national ministries of health and finance. See what they can do to get domestic resources to fill the gap.”

PEPFAR — the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Release — is the U.S. government initiative to help those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Bendavid, an infectious disease physician, joins 18,000 global leaders, researchers, activists and front-line health workers attending the conference July 18-22.

The U.N. General Assembly last month pledged to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030. But more than half of the nearly 37 million people around the world infected with HIV still have no access to the antiretroviral therapy that is saving so many lives.

U.S. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on the opening day of AIDS2016 that when the conference was last held in Durban 16 years ago, less than 1 percent of all people living with HIV in developing countries had access to treatment.

“Today, the world has proven that when we come together, we can transform lives,” Ban said, noting that of the 36.7 million people living with HIV today, about 46 percent of infected adults have access to antiretroviral treatment.

[[{"fid":"223460","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016), Durban, South Africa","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"International AIDS Society/Abhi Indrarajan","field_caption[und][0][value]":"21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016), Durban, South Africa","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

“In addition, medicines are more effective and less toxic, technology allows diagnosis in 20 minutes or less, generic medicines reduced the cost of treatment to just a dollar a day and great international finance has been made available,” Ban said.

Still, the secretary-general warned, “the gains are inadequate — and fragile,” when you consider that more than half of all people living with HIV still lack access to treatment.

Bendavid, who spoke by telephone from Durban, gave a symposium at the conference on Tuesday that summarizes his research and provides his conclusions on the most effective approaches to use donor resources.

He said the while the global burden of noncommunicable diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, is greater than HIV, malaria, or TB, the interventions available to combat infectious diseases are more cost-effective. 

“Basically, the resource constraints are forcing us to think carefully about what to invest in, and we want to invest in what works,” Bendavid said, adding that donor funding typically goes straight to the disease rather than the local health system infrastructure.

“The scarce donor resources should not be directed towards interventions that are either inefficacious or costly,” he argued. “The opportunity cost of investing in costly or ineffective interventions is very high when you consider the millions who could benefit from inexpensive, simple interventions such as bed nets and drugs for TB.”

He conceded that he typically gets push back on this line of reasoning.

“But when you’re talking about what you can do with very limited resources, investing in noncommunicable diseases, in my mind, jeopardizes the premise of donor funding: There are many people who would be happy to shut down PEPFAR and the Global Fund if they were shown to be ineffective.”

He published a paper earlier this year that found the U.S. government has invested $1.4 billion in HIV prevention programs that promote sexual abstinence and marital fidelity. But there is no evidence that the programs have been effective at changing sexual behavior and reducing HIV Risk.

Bendavid said his presentation at the symposium was received with a mix of understanding and concern.

“People mentioned that funding health systems could have averted Ebola, and that the fight against HIV needs to address health systems,” he said. “I agree, but also think governments should step up and help fill some of those gaps.”

The Asia Health Policy Program at Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, in collaboration with scholars from Stanford Health Policy's Center on Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the Next World Program, is soliciting papers for the third annual workshop on the economics of ageing titled Financing Longevity: The Economics of Pensions, Health Insurance, Long-term Care and Disability Insurance held at Stanford from April 24-25, 2017, and for a related special issue of the Journal of the Economics of Ageing.

The triumph of longevity can pose a challenge to the fiscal integrity of public and private pension systems and other social support programs disproportionately used by older adults. High-income countries offer lessons – frequently cautionary tales – for low- and middle-income countries about how to design social protection programs to be sustainable in the face of population ageing. Technological change and income inequality interact with population ageing to threaten the sustainability and perceived fairness of conventional financing for many social programs. Promoting longer working lives and savings for retirement are obvious policy priorities; but in many cases the fiscal challenges are even more acute for other social programs, such as insurance systems for medical care, long-term care, and disability. Reform of entitlement programs is also often politically difficult, further highlighting how important it is for developing countries putting in place comprehensive social security systems to take account of the macroeconomic implications of population ageing.

The objective of the workshop is to explore the economics of ageing from the perspective of sustainable financing for longer lives. The workshop will bring together researchers to present recent empirical and theoretical research on the economics of ageing with special (yet not exclusive) foci on the following topics:

• Public and private roles in savings and retirement security
• Living and working in an Age of Longevity: Lessons for Finance
• Defined benefit, defined contribution, and innovations in design of pension programs
• Intergenerational and equity implications of different financing mechanisms for pensions and social insurance
• The impact of population aging on health insurance financing
• Economic incentives of long-term care insurance and disability insurance systems
• Precautionary savings and social protection system generosity
• Elderly cognitive function and financial planning
• Evaluation of policies aimed at increasing health and productivity of older adults
• Population ageing and financing economic growth
• Tax policies’ implications for capital deepening and investment in human capital
• The relationship between population age structure and capital market returns
• Evidence on policies designed to address disparities – gender, ethnic/racial, inter-regional, urban/rural – in old-age support
• The political economy of reforming pension systems as well as health, long-term care and disability insurance programs

Submission for the workshop

Interested authors are invited to submit a 1-page abstract by Sept. 30, 2016, to Karen Eggleston at karene@stanford.edu. The authors of accepted abstracts will be notified by Oct. 15, 2016, and completed draft papers will be expected by April 1, 2017.

Economy-class travel and accommodation costs for one author of each accepted paper will be covered by the organizers.

Invited authors are expected to submit their paper to the Journal of the Economics of Ageing. A selection of these papers will (assuming successful completion of the review process) be published in a special issue.

Submission to the special issue

Authors (also those interested who are not attending the workshop) are invited to submit papers for the special issue in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing by Aug. 1, 2017. Submissions should be made online. Please select article type “SI Financing Longevity.”

About the Next World Program

The Next World Program is a joint initiative of Harvard University’s Program on the Global Demography of Aging, the WDA Forum, Stanford’s Asia Health Policy Program, and Fudan University’s Working Group on Comparative Ageing Societies. These institutions organize an annual workshop and a special issue in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing on an important economic theme related to ageing societies.

More information can be found in the PDF below.

Studying the microorganisms that live in our gut is a relatively new field, one that has only really taken off in the last decade. In fact, it is estimated that half of the microbes that live in and around our GI track have yet to be discovered.

“This means there is a huge amount of this dark matter within us,” said Ami S. Bhatt, an assistant professor of medicine and genetics who runs the Bhatt Lab at the Stanford School of Medicine. The lab is devoted to exploiting disease vulnerabilities by cataloguing the human microbiome, the trillions of microbes living in and on our bodies.

“I think if we fast-forward to the impact of some these findings in 10 years, we’re going to learn that modifying the microbiota is a potent way to modulate health,” Bhatt said. “Humans are not only made up of human cells, but are a complex mixture of human cells and the microbes that live within us and among us — and these microorganisms are as critical to our well-being as we are to theirs.”

Bhatt, along with key collaborators at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, and the INDEPTH research consortium, now intends to take this research to Africa.

She is this year’s winner of the of the Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries, awarded by Stanford Health Policy to promising young Stanford researchers who are investigating ways to improve health care in developing countries.

The $100,000 prize is targeted at Stanford’s emerging researchers who are dedicated to improving health care in poorer parts of the world, but may lack the financial resources.

Bhatt, MD, PhD, intends to take the prize money to execute the first multi-country microbiome research project focused on non-communicable disease risk in Africa. The project intends to explore the relationship between the gut microbiome composition and body mass index (BMI) in patients who are either severely malnourished or obese.

“As a rapidly developing continent with extremes of resource access, Africa is simultaneously faced with challenges relating to the extremes of metabolic status,” Bhatt wrote in her Rosenkranz project proposal. The Bay Area native, who is also the director of global oncology at Stanford, came to the School of Medicine in 2014 to focus on how changes in the microbiome are associated with cancer.

In this new project, Bhatt and members of her lab will team up with colleagues in Africa, first in South Africa, and then in Ghana, Burkina Faso, and Kenya. They will leverage the infrastructure already in place at the INDEPTH Network of researchers, using an existing cohort of 12,000 patients at within those four countries. The patients have already consented to be involved in DNA testing and have given blood and urine specimens.

Identifying alterations of the microbiome that are associated with severe malnutrition or obesity could pave the way for interventions that may mitigate the severity or prevalence of these disorders, Bhatt said.

“These organisms are critical to our health in that they are in a delicate balance with one another and their human hosts,” she said. “Alterations in the microbiome are associated with various diseases — but have mostly been studied in Western populations. Unfortunately, little is known about the generalizability of these findings to low- and middle-income countries – where most of the world’s population lives.”

Bhatt said that as Africa rapidly continues to develop, the continent is simultaneous faced with challenges relating to extreme weight gain and loss. While the wealthy are facing obesity and its associated disease such as stroke, heart failure and diabetes, many people are still faced with issues related to food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition.

The research, she hopes, could lead to aggressive behavioral, dietary and lifestyle modifications targeted at maintaining healthy BMI in at-risk individuals.

Video by Ankur Bhatt

Grant Miller, an associate professor of medicine and core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy who chaired the Rosenkranz Prize committee this year, believes Bhatt’s research could eventually break new ground.

“The entire Rosenkranz Prize selection committee was highly impressed with Ami and the innovation of her project,” Miller said. “Ami’s work on the human microbiome in the extremes of nutritional status in developing countries — including its potential link to obesity, an emerging challenge in low income countries — is potentially path-breaking.”

The award’s namesake, George Rosenkranz, first synthesized cortisone in 1951, and later progestin, the active ingredient in oral birth control pills. He went on to establish the Mexican National Institute for Genomic Medicine, and his family created the Rosenkranz Prize in 2009.

The award embodies Dr. Rosenkranz’s belief that young scientists hold the curiosity and drive necessary to find alternative solutions to longstanding health-care dilemmas.

The Supreme Court struck down parts of a Texas law that imposed standards on abortion providers that had the effect of reducing the number of abortion facilities in the state by at least half.  In a 5-3 ruling in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the liberal wing of the Court, the justices said the restrictions placed an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to seek an abortion. The 2013 law  required all abortion facilities to meet state standards for ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, “We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”

Michelle Mello, a professor of health research and policy at the Stanford School of Medicine and professor of law at Stanford Law School, as well a core faculty member of Stanford Health Policy, was a signatory to a brief submitted to the Supreme Court by public health academics and the American Public Health Association in support of the abortion providers’ challenge.

What was the main argument of the amici curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court by public health academics and organizations?

There were two critical factual points that had to be made. First, although the Texas law’s provisions were putatively adopted to benefit women’s health, they actually had no medical benefit.  Second, the law had a rapid, dramatic effect on access to abortion in Texas.  Particularly because in Texas several other restrictions already limited access to abortion and funding for family planning services was scant, this poses a real threat to public health.

Can you say more about why the provisions of the law did not protect women’s health?

The standards were completely unnecessary.  Abortion is an extremely safe procedure; complications rarely occur.  The facilities already had protocols in place to ensure safe transfer to hospitals in the event of an emergency.  But when complications do occur, they usually arise after the woman returns home, so transfer from the facility to the hospital isn’t an issue.  And there’s no reason a woman needs to receive emergency care from the same doctor who performed the abortion. 

Many of the standards for ASCs are simply irrelevant to providing safe abortions.  Many abortions aren’t surgical, they’re medical (chemical).  And standards relating to things like providing general anesthesia, avoiding infections to open wounds, having an advanced heating and air condition system, and having a particular traffic pattern from the operating room to the recovery room just don’t apply.  The state’s argument about protecting women’s health was just a pretext. 

It was a dangerous pretext, in fact, because these were standards that most abortion facilities clearly were not going to be able to meet.  Many hospitals require doctors to admit a minimum number of patients in order to maintain admitting privileges, but abortion is so safe that abortion providers generally can’t do that.  And fitting out a clinic to meet ASCs is prohibitively expensive.  ASCs can afford it because they charge for expensive operations like cosmetic surgeries, hysterectomies, and hernia repairs; abortion providers can’t.

Why do you and the other signatories consider this a public health issue?

More than 60,000 Texas women per year obtain legal abortions.  While we’d all like to see this number go down, you can’t restrict access to abortion while also failing to provide adequate support for other methods of family planning.  History makes it abundantly clear that the result will be greater numbers of women resorting to illegal, unsafe abortions or facing the mental and physical health risks of carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.

Does the Supreme Court’s holding have implications beyond this case?

Yes, because the Court clarified how it will apply the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in future cases.  The majority said that courts must balance “the burdens a law imposes on abortion access” against “the benefits those laws confer.”  The justices also clarified that appellate courts can take a deep dive into the factual evidence about a law’s effects presented earlier in the case.  These holdings collectively make it harder for states to adopt abortion restrictions based on flimsy arguments about how they will benefit women. 

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States, after lung cancer, yet many Americans are still loathe to be screened for the disease.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force strongly recommended adults ages 50 to 75 to be screened for colon cancer and suggested adults 76 to 85  make individual decisions about whether to be screened, depending on their overall health and prior screening history. The recommendation and several accompanying editorials were published Wednesay in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

The independent body of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine emphasized colonoscopy is not the only valid test out there. There are multiple screening options available to the one-third of Americans over 50 who have never been screened.

We pose five key questions about the Task Force recommendations to Douglas K. Owens, the Henry J. Kaiser, Jr., Professor of Medicine at Stanford and director of the Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. He is an author of the recommendation and was a member of the Task Force when the guidelines were developed.

What is the most significant finding of this final recommendation?

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States. The good news is that evidence convincingly shows screening for colorectal cancer works. The Task Force strongly recommends screening adults 50 to 75 for colorectal cancer, as it reduces the risk of dying from the disease. Unfortunately, one-third of people 50 to 75 have never been screened, so we are missing an important opportunity to prevent deaths from colorectal cancer.

There are multiple screening options for colorectal cancer. What are they and how should individuals decide which is best for them?

What really matters is that people get screened. There are several options that are effective, so we recommend that people discuss the options with their clinician. There are direct visualization tests, like colonoscopy, and stool-based tests, like fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Each test has different strengths and limitations, and people may prefer one approach over another. For example, colonoscopy can be done every 10 years, but FIT testing should be done every year. But the real message is, choose an approach in consultation with your clinician and get screened.

The Task Force found that once adults reach 76 years old, the benefits of screening become smaller and the potential for harm is greater. Why is this and how should older Americans determine which test is best for them?

We recommend individual decision making for patients 76 to 85. The benefits are smaller because a person’s chance of dying of other causes goes up as they get older. The harms are still small but increase with age, primarily because the risks of the potential complications of colonoscopy (bleeding, perforation, and infection) go up with age. Still, some people in this age group will benefit from screening. People most likely to benefit are those who have not been screened before, people who are healthy enough to undergo treatment for CRC should it be found, and people who do not have other diseases or conditions that limit their life expectancy substantially.

Owens explains the Task Force's recommendations to JAMA

Image

JAMA Network | JAMA | USPSTF Recommendation Statement: Screening for Colorectal Cancer

African-Americans have the highest incidence of and mortality rates from colorectal cancer among all racial and ethnic subgroups. Why are African-Americans more susceptible and does this mean that the screening recommendations differ for them?

The Task Force recognizes the burden that colorectal cancer has on African-Americans, who are at higher risk of being diagnosed with and dying from the disease than other racial/ethnic subgroups. We don’t know why this is — more research is needed in this area. The Task Force did not find enough evidence to conclusively support that making a different recommendation specific to African-Americans would result in a greater net benefit for this population. So our recommendations are intended to apply to all racial/ethnic groups. More robust efforts are needed to ensure that at-risk populations actually receive the screening tests and the follow-up treatments or interventions they need, as people are dying unnecessarily from this disease.

What data did the Task Force use to come to its conclusions?

The Task Force commissioned a comprehensive systematic review of the available evidence on the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening. The Task Force also commissioned a modeling study from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to help it better understand different screening strategies, such as the optimal age to start or stop screening, and the length of time between screenings. The evidence is convincing that screening reduces the risk of dying from colorectal cancer.

Could out of pocket drug costs be responsible for pandemics? In this Public Health Perspectives article, Marcella Alsan discusses how copayments for antibiotics can cause people in poor areas to turn to unregulated markets.

On May 26, 2016, researchers at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center reported the first case of what they called a “truly pan-drug resistant bacteria.” By now, the story has been well-covered in the media: a month earlier, a 49 year old woman walked into a clinic in Pennsylvania with what seemed to be a urinary tract infection. But tests revealed something far scarier—both for her and public health officials. The strain of E. Coli that infiltrated her body has a gene that makes it bulletproof to colistin, the so-called last resort antibiotic.

Most have pinned the blame for the impending doom of a “post-antibiotic world” on the overuse of antibiotics and a lack of new ones in the development pipeline. But there’s another superbug incubator that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves: poverty.

Last month at the IMF meeting in Washington, D.C., UK Chancellor George Osborne warned about the potentially devastating human and economic cost of antimicrobial resistance. He called for “the world’s governments and industry leaders to work together in radical new ways.” But Gerry Bloom, a physician and economist at the Institute for Development Studies, argued that any measures to stop overuse and concoct new drugs must be “complemented by investments in measures to ensure universal access to effective antibiotic treatment of common infections.”

“In many countries, poor people obtain these drugs in unregulated markets,” Bloom said. “They often take a partial course and the products may be sub-standard. This increases the risk of resistance.”

For at least fifteen years, we’ve known about these socioeconomic origins of antimicrobial resistance. Other studies have revealed problems with mislabeled or expired or counterfeit drugs. But the clearest link between poverty and the rise of antimicrobial resistance is that poor people may not see a qualified health care provider or complete a course of quality antibiotics. Instead, they might turn to unregulated markets for substandard drugs.

But why do people resort to unregulated markets or take drugs that aren’t that great if they are available? Marcella Alsan, an assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford School of Medicine who studies the relationship between socioeconomic disparities and infectious diseases, led a study that answered this question. In last October’s Lancet Infectious Diseases, Alsan and her colleagues showed that it might have a lot to do with requiring copayments in the public sector. To show this, they analyzed the WHO’s 2014 Antibacterial Resistance Global Surveillance report with an eye toward the usual suspects, such as antibiotic consumption and antibiotic-flooded livestock.

Read More