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.

Sarita Panday’s personal and professional journey from a childhood in a small village in Nepal to an academic career that has taken her across the globe to Australia, Europe, and now Stanford is a story that speaks to the power of education as a life-transforming and world-changing force. Sarita is our 2018-19 postdoctoral fellow in Asia health policy and her research focuses on improving maternal health service provision in Nepal.

The Asia Health Policy Postdoctoral Fellowship is offered annually by APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP). On May 1, Sarita will present her research at a seminar cosponsored by AHPP and the Center for South Asia. We caught up with Sarita to learn about her work, the state of maternal health and education in Nepal, and what’s next for her career.

Q: Your research interests include health service delivery and human resources for global health, and your PhD project explored the role of female community health volunteers in maternal health service provision in Nepal. What is the state of maternal health in Nepal? How does it compare to other areas in South Asia?

While substantial progress in maternal health has been achieved over the last two decades, Nepal still has high rates of maternal deaths compared to its neighbouring countries. According to UN estimates, maternal mortality ratio (number of deaths due to pregnancy-related causes per 100,000 live births) is one of the highest in Nepal (258) compared to India (174), Bangladesh (176), Pakistan (176) or Sri Lanka (30).  Maternal deaths in Nepal’s rural areas are three times likely to be higher than in urban areas. Therefore, my research focuses on improving maternal health status in rural area.

Q: Tell us about your current research: What questions/problems you're exploring? What are some of the findings your work has revealed?

As the 2018-19 Asia Health Policy Postdoctoral Fellow at APARC, I am currently working on publications based on my PhD, which focused on improving healthcare for marginalized women in rural Nepal. My next paper, forthcoming in PLOS One, explores the underuse of healthcare services among Nepal’s marginalized communities. In this paper, I analyze the factors that hinder use of healthcare by certain ethnic groups such as Dalits (the lowest group within the Hindu caste system), Madhesi (people living in the southern plains of Nepal, close to the border with India), Muslim, and Chepang and Tamang (indigenous groups in hill villages). These ethnic groups face barriers to health service use that include lack of knowledge, lack of trust in volunteers, traditional beliefs and healthcare practices, low decision-making power among women, and perceived indignities experienced when using health centers. Therefore, community health programs aimed to improve healthcare use among such populations should consider these specific contextual elements along with health system factors.

My next manuscript (in preparation) focuses on the importance of paying community health workers, which is also one of the key findings of my PhD. I found that women volunteers appeared to be highly dissatisfied by the lack of financial incentives for their services and wanted remuneration. This finding contradicts previous claims that reported community health volunteers were happy with their status. I have just finished a first draft of the manuscript and will soon send it for review.

Apart from my fellowship at Stanford, I am volunteering to form a team of interdisciplinary researchers to improve maternal and child health among marginalized communities in Nepal. I am doing this as part of my role as an honorary research fellow in the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield, where I also earned a PhD in public health. I recently organized a workshop in the UK to leverage partnerships across universities and the local NGO PHASE Nepal. During the workshop, I shared my experience of using participatory approaches (such as participatory video methods and policy workshops) to connect communities with policymakers, and I plan to use similar participatory approaches in my future research. The workshop successfully generated support from colleagues and the local partner.

Q: Your personal and professional journey has taken you from growing up in rural Nepal to pursuing a doctorate in Britain and now a postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford. How would you describe the situation of Nepal’s higher education system, and the demand for foreign education in the country? What are some of the lessons you have learned throughout your own years of international education?

Although Nepal has a long history of education, the current formal education system was formed only in 1951, after the establishment of democracy. In the short period since then, Nepal has made substantial progress in adult literacy rate (from 20.6 % in 1981 to 64.7 % in 2015), but the quality of the public education system remains questionable, with low opportunities for employment. There has been some improvement since the beginning of technical education as a formal sector in 1980: the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology is responsible for education in Nepal and there are currently a total of nine constituent universities with 90 affiliated universities and 1012 campuses. However, the quality of education in Nepalese universities is often controversial due to their being a playground for major political parties. And despite the government’s promises to increase its spending on public education the education budget appears to be cut each year.

As for my own experience, I graduated with a BSc Nursing degree in Nepal without realizing that I wouldn’t get a placement within the public sector. The government hasn’t yet created a position for graduates like me, which forced me to seek a job in the private sector. While I managed to find a well-paying if strenuous job in remote Nepal, I saw many colleagues who struggled to find jobs that matched their qualifications. Some of them worked voluntarily or in low-paying positions. While the Nepalese government continues to produce graduate nurses there’s no system to retain them, despite a severe scarcity of human resources for health.

Q: What's next for your career? What issues are you going to focus on in your upcoming research project?

I have recently been appointed as a Global Challenge Fellow at the University of Sheffield to work on a two-year research project in Nepal. Starting this July, I will work with rural women in two Nepalese districts (Dhading and Sindhupalchok), conducting participatory co-designed research aimed to raise awareness and understanding of the social, cultural, economic, and political factors that hamper women’s access to healthcare services. I plan to use participatory approaches, such as participatory video methods and policy workshops, to connect communities with policymakers, and to partner with PHASE Nepal to improve utilization of healthcare among the country’s marginalized populations.

I’m excited to share my work with the Stanford community in an upcoming seminar on May 1, and hope to see many friends and colleagues there.

Register to attend Sarita's seminar >>

​

Fourteen years ago, Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens and colleagues published a cost-effectiveness analysis that would change the face of HIV prevention. Their landmark study in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that expanding HIV screening would increase life expectancy and curb transmission of the disease — and was cost effective in virtually all health-care settings.

Not long after their model-based results were published, their findings became key evidence in the decision to expand screening by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Their work has been used in HIV screening guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — which Owens now chairs — the American College of Physicians and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among others.

Owens and his Stanford colleague Margaret Brandeau, professor of management science and engineering, have led this team of decision scientists who have been at the forefront of developing scientific models for the screening and prevention of HIV for two decades now. This modeling team — which also includes colleagues from UCSF and Yale — has published nearly 250 peer-reviewed studies and is one of the most experienced and respected in the world.

But today, the opioid epidemic is threatening the hard-fought gains in the prevention and control of HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In support of their continued work to address the opioid epidemic, Owens received a highly prestigious MERIT award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),which provides up to 10 years of funding for the team.

“We are extremely grateful to NIDA for this support and to our colleague at NIDA, Dr. Peter Hartsock, who has worked with us for over 20 years to mitigate the harms from HIV and HCV,” said Owens.

Image

The team will now turn its sights on the complex interplay of the opioid epidemic, and HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission. The transmission of HCV has been fueled by the opioid epidemic, and HCV now kills more Americans than all other infectious diseases combined.  

“The unfolding opioid epidemic is a defining challenge for the public health and medical systems in the United States,” Owens, the principal investigator of the team, and his colleagues wrote in their grant proposal. “The reversal of life expectancy growth in the demographic groups most affected by the opioid epidemic represents the aggregation of a complex web of harmful public health and population trends, including a rise in overdoses, suicides, mental health afflictions, economic disadvantages, and infectious disease outbreaks.”

Indeed, for the first time since the 1960s, the U.S. life expectancy has contracted for the second year in a row; drug overdoses have been the leading cause of death for Americans under age 50, with an estimated two-thirds of those deaths resulting from opioids.

Since the last renewal of their NIDA-funding grant in 2013, the team has watched the dramatic rise of opioid overuse, injection drug use, and overdose become a national public health crisis, with more than 60,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States reported by the CDC.

“The growing use of needle-based opioids increases the likelihood of accelerating HIV and HCV transmission,” said co-investigator Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, an associate professor of medicine and core faculty at Stanford Health Policy. “Identifying the best combination of approaches to reduce HIV and HCV transmissions stemming from the opioid epidemic is of critical public health importance.”

The other co-investigators on the team of the project, “Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug Abuse,” are:

1. Eran Bendavid, an infectious diseases physician and associate professor of medicine at Stanford who is another a seasoned HIV modeler and outcomes expert;

2. Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford and a former senior policy advisor in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy; 

3. David Paltiel, a Yale School of Public Health professor who pioneered policy options for mitigating the impact of HIV in the United States and abroad;

4. Gregg Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale and a 2018 MacArthur Foundation Fellow who will focus on developing new algorithms to detect and predict opioid-related outbreaks of HIV and HCV;

5. James Kahn of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics and an expert on the individual and population impact of prevention and treatment for HIV, HCV and opioid use.

The End of AIDS? 

Toward 2012, a series of scientific advances led to calls for “the end of AIDS.” The two big factors were the cost of the “triple cocktail” of antiretrovirals plunging in developing countries and then huge donations from wealthy countries began pouring in to fight the disease.

Yet the researchers say successes have been too few and that the incidence of HIV remains far too high. About 40 million people were living with HIV around the world in 2017; an estimated 940,000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses that same year.

The year 2015 marked the first time in two decades that the number of HIV diagnoses tied to opioids increased.

"Although it was started by prescription opioid overprescribing, the epidemic has evolved to include significant injection opioid use which is now threatening to significantly increase the spread of infectious diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C,” said Humphreys.

The most visible example of an opioid-related HIV outbreak took place in Scott County, IN, in 2014-2015. A single infection introduced into the community resulted in nearly 200 new HIV cases within six months, largely related to oxymorphone injections. In 2017 and again in March 2018, two additional substantial outbreaks occurred in Scott County, likely linked to both risky sex and needle sharing. 

In addition, the CDC has identified 220 counties in 26 states that are uniquely vulnerable to HIV and HCV outbreaks related to opioid injections.

Image

“Developing models that forecast high-risk areas for HIV and HCV is essential for aligning surveillance and public health interventions with risk,” said Brandeau, a leader in designing models for the prevention of HIV and hepatitis, especially in drug abuse disorders.

There have also been striking increases in the injection of opioids and heroin that are closely linked to the spread of viral hepatitis. In the demographic areas most affected by opioids, the researchers found, diagnoses of acute hepatitis have more than quadrupled — reversing trends of the previous decade. And in the country as a whole, the number of new HCV cases has nearly tripled since 2010. 

“For any type of contact with an infected source such as a dirty needle, or even cocaine straws, HCV is by far the most rapidly transmissible of the blood-borne infections,” said Bendavid. “One of the challenging issues with hepatitis C is that its major health manifestations do not appear for many years after infection."

What’s the Plan? 

In the next five years, the team intends to evaluate how strategies to prevent and mitigate the harms of opioid use can decrease the spread of HIV and HCV and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality from opioid use. They have four specific goals: 

1. Model the effect of the opioid epidemic on transmission of HIV and HCV.

2. Model the epidemiological and population impacts of individual strategies to prevent and mitigate the harms of opioids and drug injection on HIV and HCV outcomes by evaluating prevention strategies;

3. Model the epidemiologic and population impact of portfoliosof strategies to mitigate the harms of opioid use and drug injection on HIV and HCV outcomes;

4. And model the impact of barriers to implementation of effective strategies to reduce the harms of opioid use on HIV and HCV.

“We will perform novel analyses assessing intervention impacts singly and in combination assessing outcomes for HIV, HCV and opioid use disorder,” the researchers wrote in their grant proposal.

Then, the researcher will model new methods for building complex multi-intervention and multi-disease models and developing adaptive testing algorithms for identifying outbreaks.

Finally, the team intends to assess the barriers and intervention approaches “that more realistically reflect implementation issues than current models and hence identify resource needs for system planning.”

Marcella Alsan and Marianne Wanamaker are recipients of this year’s prestigious Arrow Award from the International Health Economics Association for research that shows the health of African-American men was adversely impacted by the Tuskegee syphilis study of the early 20th century.

The annual award recognizes excellence in the field of health economics and is named after the late Kenneth J. Arrow, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and mathematician. He was a Stanford Health Policy fellow and senior fellow by courtesy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He was also a senior fellow, emeritus, at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

The IHEA awarded the 27th annual Arrow Award to Alsan, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, a senior fellow at FSI and SIEPR, and co-author Wanamaker of the University of Tennessee for their paper, “Tuskegee and the Health of Black Men” published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

The infamous Tuskegee study began in 1932 when the U.S. Public Health Service began following approximately 600 African-American men, some of whom had syphilis, for the stated purpose of understanding the natural history of the disease. The government willingly withheld treatment even after penicillin became an established magic bullet for treating the illness. 

The medical doctors and staff of the CDC followed the men for four decades, until ultimately the study was halted in 1972 when it was brought to the attention of the media by law student Peter Buxtun.

As noted in this story about the research, Alsan and Wanamaker found that the public disclosure of the study in 1972 was associated with an increase in medical mistrust and mortality among African-American men in the immediate aftermath of the revelation.

“The award is an immense honor for both Marianne and me. First, it sheds light on the importance of history for understanding health disparities. Second, it reaffirms the “expected behavior of the physician” that Professor Arrow eloquently described in his seminal 1963 paper on the distinctive features of the market for medical care and the externalities associated with deviating from those expectations.”

African-American men today have the worst health outcomes of all major ethnic, racial and demographic groups in the United States. Life expectancy for black men at age 45 is three years less than their white male peers, and five years less than for black women.

When their working paper was first published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, it became part of the national discussion about the lasting impact of the Tuskegee study.

“The story that Alsan and Wanamaker uncovered is even deeper than the direct effects of the Tuskegee Study,” wrote Vann R. Newkirk II in The Atlantic. “Their research helps validate the anecdotal experiences of physicians, historians, and public health workers in black communities and gives new power to them.”

The United States is the only country in the 35-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that offers no paid leave to new mothers. The U.S. also has relatively poor infant health ratings, particularly for preterm births and infant mortality.

So why has the federal government been so reluctant to join other industrialized nations in paying new mothers to stay at home so they can nurture and nourish these new citizens?

“There’s opposition from business interests arguing that any type of mandate on employers imposes too large costs, especially for small businesses,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Maya Rossin-Slater. “There’s not much empirical evidence supporting this argument, but I think the strong political opposition from business supporters may be a central reason for a lack of action on the federal level.”

In a policy brief published March 28 in Health Affairs, Rossin-Slater, an assistant professor of health research and policy, lays out the evidence that suggests the introduction of paid family leave (PFL) for up to one year in duration may yield significant child and maternal health benefits, both in the short and long term. Her co-author on the brief is Lindsey Uniat, a predoctoral research fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

“Existing research suggests that when leave is paid, take-up rates are higher among low-income and disadvantaged families than when it is unpaid, which enables more families to benefit,” they wrote.

Some of the short- and long-term health benefits include decreased incidence of low birthweight and preterm births, increased breast-feeding, reduced rates of hospitalizations among infants and improved maternal health.

Family and Medical Leave Act

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave with continued health insurance coverage to attend to a newborn or adopted child, a family member, or an employee’s own serious health condition. There are strict eligibility requirements for the FMLA, such as needing to have worked at least 1,250 hours for an employer with 50 or more employees during the 12 months before the start of the leave.

The most recent data, according to the authors, indicate that only about 60 percent of private-sector workers are eligible for FMLA, and 46 percent of those eligible report not being able to afford taking unpaid time off work.

Six states and the District of Columbia have passed paid family leave policies, and the issue has been receiving attention at both state and federal levels in recent years. California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, as well as Puerto Rico, have State Disability Insurance (SDI), which provides partial wage-replaced leave for workers with temporary disabilities and for mothers preparing for and recovering from childbirth. These policies offer up to six weeks of leave postpartum for vaginal deliveries and eight weeks for C-section deliveries.

“The majority of existing research on the health effects of PFL focuses on children’s outcomes,” the authors write. Earlier work on the impacts of unpaid leave provided through the FMLA shows that it led to small increases in birthweight and large reductions in infant mortality rates.

However, these health benefits were apparent only for children of relatively advantaged mothers, the authors wrote, which is consistent with prior evidence that such mothers were most likely to be eligible for, and able to afford to use, unpaid leave.

“In contrast, mothers and children from less advantaged backgrounds particularly benefit from access to paid leave,” they said, noting that one study showed that the introduction of paid maternity leave through the SDI system in five states led to a reduction in the share of low birthweight and preterm births, especially for unmarried and black mothers.

Rossin-Slater and Uniat believe paid family leave may affect population health through multiple channels:

• Children of parents who take leave may receive more parental care, breast-feeding and immunizations if parents are able to stay home longer after birth;
• Child health may improve from the extra resources that parents get form PFL benefits, such as more nutritious food;
• Infant and long-term health outcomes may improve if PFL access lowers maternal stress during pregnancy, perhaps due to increased financial and job security;
• Taking time off from work without the financial strain may improve the parental bond with the infant — leading to long-term health benefits for the child.

The Labor Market

Finally, existing research indicates that paid family leave may benefit the labor market by leading to fewer high-school dropouts, thus an increase in children’s future wages.

“Several policy takeaways are evidence from the research to date,” the authors wrote. “Paid leave, in contrast to unpaid leave, increases leave usage and duration, especially among disadvantaged parents who are least able to afford unpaid time off.”

More research is needed, they said, to understand how paid family leave legislation could impact employers.

“We know little about how employers deal with work interruptions due to employees’ taking leave or whether employers respond to PFL mandates by changing their own benefits packages, hiring practices, or other aspects of jobs,” they said.