Like any energetic 7-year-old, your daughter loves running around outside, playing with her friends and kicking around a soccer ball. So you’re concerned when she starts losing energy. She looks pale and refuses to eat. You take her to the pediatrician, and her test results show the worst: she has leukemia. Once you work through the shock, you do you what any parent would do: find the best possible care to get her through it. But where do you go?

Health care for children is different from care for adults. Treating kids requires doctors who are experienced with their unique needs, and according to Stanford pediatricians Paul Wise and Lisa Chamberlain, this experience is developed and lives in children’s hospitals.

And these facilities are highly dependent on Medicaid.

“Children are the poorest segment of the United States population,” said Wise, a Stanford Health Policy core faculty member.

Nearly one out of every five children lives below the poverty line, according to the United States Census Bureau. Very few children need extensive health care, but of those that do, about 44 percent rely on Medicaid or other public insurance programs.

Because so many of their patients use Medicaid, these children’s hospitals need reimbursements from the program to support their services. Without this income, some might have to downsize or even shut down, and if they do, services would suffer for all children.

“If you want to kill rich kids, cut Medicaid,” said Wise. “If you’re a rich kid with a serious chronic problem, you’re going to want facilities that provide high-quality care. Those facilities are intensely dependent on Medicaid.”

If the American Health Care Act (the Republican replacement for Obamacare) passes Congress, Medicaid will convert to a per capita cap system. Instead of providing coverage to all who meet its criteria — which is primarily based on income and need — the federal government would cap how much money the federal government could provide each person.

Wise and Chamberlain worry that a set amount allocated for states or individuals would not be able to keep up with health industry inflation, causing payments to effectively decrease over time. They are also concerned that children would be particularly affected by these changes because their medical needs are so different from adults’.

“Caring for seriously ill children requires a wide range of services and specialists, from pediatric surgeons to speech therapists to hospital teachers who make sure kids don’t fall behind,” said Chamberlain. “In pediatrics we work as a team — and cutting Medicaid will reduce our ability to do that.”

Not only would the funds available for child health coverage erode, but according to Wise, the focus on adult health concerns in the emerging Medicaid changes could, without immediate attention, undermine 40 years of progress in developing strong, regionalized child health systems.

Providing for children’s needs should be simple because their expenditures are relatively low. Child health care makes up less than nine percent of all federal health expenditures in the United States.

But because the health policy debate in the United States focuses on older populations, children are often left out.

“I think it’s really important that we have these conversations about the unique needs of children,” said Chamberlain.

Wise and Chamberlain hope to alert policy-makers to the fiscal needs of children and how they affect care for all kids.

“Our elected officials have to cope with a wide range of issues, and they welcome engaged professionals exchanging ideas about active legislation,” said Chamberlain. “Those conversations really matter – now is the time to let them hear what we think.”

To hear more from Wise and Chamberlain about child health and Medicaid, listen to their podcast on World Class:

The health gap between rich and poor children in developing countires is staggeringly high, but Assistant Professor of Medicine Eran Bendavid found that it is shrinking. In his pilot project, "Empirical Evidence on Wealth Inequality and Health in Developing Countries," Bendavid discovered that since the mid-2000s, life expectancies for children under five are starting to converge. How can we continue to close the gap? Watch to find out.

Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, relays the potential risks and benefits of legalizing marijuana. His research focuses on drug policy, and he has written extensively about the effects of marijuana from a legal and health perspective.

California, Massachusetts and Nevada all legalized marijuana in the last election. Does this mean the legalization movement has reached a tipping point?  

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, it would probably feel that way, not because she’s a legalization advocate, but because she’d have bigger fish to fry and would probably continue President Obama’s laissez-faire approach. With the Trump administration’s new cabinet, all bets are off. Still, one in five Americans now live in a state where recreational use of marijuana is legal, and that’s a big market. And as the market grows, the industry’s lobbying clout grows.

What are the health risks post-legalization?

That depends on how much consumption levels increase. There are good reasons to expect marijuana prices to fall, which will increase consumption. Because many people use marijuana without health consequences, I worry less about an increase in the number of people using marijuana than about an increase in the number who use it one or more times daily. There is growing evidence that heavy marijuana use is associated with an increased risk of psychosis. We don’t know if it is a true cause-and-effect relationship; let’s hope it is not. But I think the biggest health threat is dependence, which for marijuana is something like getting stuck in the La Brea tar pits — your world just gets smaller and smaller as you get more dysfunctional.

Robert MacCoun, PhD

How can legalizing states combat these risks?

The good news is that legalization makes possible all sorts of regulatory options that weren’t available under prohibition. States should insist that no marijuana products are to be packaged in a way that entices children. Doses should be standardized, and there should be accurate labeling about the THC content. States should discourage products with high levels of THC, and perhaps encourage products with higher levels of cannabidiol (CBD), an ingredient that seems to counteract some of the harmful effects of THC.

The bad news is that the state ballot initiatives didn’t do much more than give lip service to public health and safety, and industry entrepreneurs are pushing back hard against state regulators. I think the industry is being foolish here — they’ve won eight states but still have 42 states to go. I don’t think they realize how quickly a backlash could emerge if those eight states show rising rates of various adverse outcomes.

Could there be any positive health effects of marijuana use?

Absolutely. There are plenty of lines of evidence suggesting medical benefits for some patients. Intriguingly, several new studies suggest that medical marijuana states may be experiencing reduced levels of opioid use and opioid overdoses. The Catch 22 is that the DEA decided not to reschedule marijuana because there isn’t enough rigorous evidence, but there isn’t enough rigorous evidence because the Feds have made such studies almost impossible to conduct.

Some of the biggest health benefits of marijuana will occur if it turns out that marijuana use is a substitute for binge drinking. There are both physiological and economic reasons to think that might be the case, but while some studies show substitution, others show complementarity. For a researcher, one big benefit of legalization is that it is going to help us finally answer a lot of these research questions.

Stanford researchers have determined that more than 15 million children are living in high-mortality hotspots across 28 Sub-Saharan African countries, where death rates remain stubbornly high despite progress elsewhere within those countries.

The study, published online Oct. 25 in The Lancet Global Health, is the first to record and analyze local-level mortality variations across a large swath of Sub-Saharan Africa.

These hotspots may remain hidden even as many countries are on track to achieve one of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals: reducing the mortality rate of children under 5 to 25 per 1,000 by 2030. National averages are typically used for tracking child mortality trends, allowing left-behind regions within countries to remain out of sight — until now.

The senior author of the study is Eran Bendavid, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine and core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy. The lead author is Marshall Burke, PhD, an assistant professor of Earth System Science and a fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute’s Center on Food Security and the Environment.

Decline in under-5 mortality rate

The authors note that the ongoing decline in under-5 mortality worldwide ranks among the most significant public and population health successes of the past 30 years. Deaths of children under the age of 5 years have fallen from nearly 13 million a year in 1990 to fewer than 6 million a year in 2015, even as the world’s under-5 population grew by nearly 100 million children, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

“However, the amount of variability underlying this broad global progress is substantial,” the authors wrote.

“Mortality numbers are typically tracked at the national level, with the assumption that national differences between countries, such as government spending on health, are what determine progress against mortality,” Bendavid said. “The goal of our work was to understand whether national-level mortality statistics were hiding important variation at the more local level — and then to use this information to shed light on broader mortality trends.”

The authors used data from 82 U.S. Agency for International Development surveys in 28 Sub-Saharan African countries, including information on the location and timing of 3.24 million births and 393,685 deaths of children under 5, to develop high-resolution spatial maps of under-5 mortality from the 1980s through the 2000s.

Using this database, the authors found that local-level factors, such as climate and malaria exposure, were predictive of overall patterns, while national-level factors were relatively poor predictors of child mortality.

Image

Temperature, malaria exposure, civil conflict

“We didn’t see jumps in mortality at country borders, which is what you’d expect if national differences really determined mortality,” said co-author Sam Heft-Neal, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in Earth System Science. “But we saw a strong relationship between local-level factors and mortality.”

For example, he said, one standard deviation increase in temperature above the local average was related to a 16-percent higher child mortality rate. Local malaria exposure and recent civil conflict were also predictive of mortality.

The authors found that 23 percent of the children in their study countries live in mortality hotspots — places where mortality rates are not declining fast enough to meet the targets of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. The majority of these live in just two countries: Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In only three countries do fewer than 5 percent of children live in hotspots: Benin, Namibia and Tanzania.

As part of the research, the authors have established a high-resolution mortality database with local-level mortality data spanning the last three decades to provide “new opportunities for a deeper understanding of the role that environmental, economic, or political conditions play in shaping mortality outcomes.”  The database, available at http://fsedata.stanford.edu, is an open-source tool for health and environmental researchers, child-health experts and policymakers.

“Our hope is that the creation of a high-resolution mortality database will provide other researchers new opportunities for deeper understanding of the role that environmental, economic or political conditions play in shaping mortality outcomes,” said Bendavid.  “These data could also improve the targeting of aid to areas where it is most needed.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.