The government’s far-reaching health care foreign aid program has contributed to a significant decline in adult death rates in Africa, according to a new study by Stanford researchers. 

Between 2004 and 2008, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief was associated with a reduction in the odds of death of nearly 20 percent in the countries where it operated. The researchers found that more than 740,000 lives were saved during this period in nine countries targeted by the program, known by its acronym, PEPFAR.

“We were surprised and impressed to find these mortality reductions,” said Eran Bendavid, an affiliate at Stanford Health Policy, part of the university’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“While many assume that foreign aid works, most evaluations of aid suggest it does not work or even causes harm,” said Bendavid, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford’s School of Medicine. “Despite all the challenges to making aid work and to implementing HIV treatment in Africa, the benefits of PEPFAR were large and measurable across many African countries.”



The study is the first to show a decline in all causes of death related to the program. It appears in the May 16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Bendavid is the lead author of the study. It was co-authored by Grant Miller and Jay Bhattacharya, who are both core faculty members of Stanford Health Policy and associate professors of medicine. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Dr. George Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries.

PEPFAR began in 2003 under the Bush administration with a five-year, $15 billion investment in fighting AIDS around the world and a focus on treatment and prevention in 15 countries. It was reauthorized by Congress in 2008 and has expanded its reach to 31 countries.

To measure the impact of the program, Bendavid and his colleagues analyzed health and survival information for more than 1.5 million adults in 27 African countries, including nine countries where PEPFAR has focused its efforts. The researchers examined data available in the Demographic and Health Surveys, a USAID-funded project that involves a representative sampling of in-person interviews among women in which they discuss their health and the health of their family members. These surveys form the foundation of many health measurements in developing countries.

They found the odds of death from any cause among adults were 16 to 20 percent lower in the PEPFAR-targeted countries.

To bolster the results, the scientists did a separate analysis using specific data on PEPFAR programs in Rwanda and Tanzania. They compared regions of the two countries where PEPFAR’s investments led to widespread increases in the number and size of sites providing antiretroviral therapy, with areas where PEPFAR had fewer services available.



“We observed a similar reduction in mortality when exploring PEPFAR’s effects using a different lens,” Bendavid said.

In Tanzania, the odds of death were found to be 17 percent lower and in Rwanda 25 percent lower in the districts with greater support from PEPFAR.

Bendavid speculates that the program’s commitment to building an infrastructure that includes drug distribution systems, clinics, pharmacies, laboratories and testing facilities has been an important factor for its success.

“The scale of PEPFAR’s investment was unprecedented,” Bendavid said. “People working in PEPFAR’s focus countries describe working supply chains, stocked pharmacies and staffed clinics.”



Although the program was targeted to address HIV, these services could have benefitted patients with a variety of other health concerns. For example, one study found that some uninfected, pregnant women in Ethiopia, Rwanda and Tanzania chose to deliver their babies in facilities supported by PEPFAR, Bendavid said.

Some have argued that focusing resources on a specific disease, such as AIDS, may detract efforts from other diseases and activities, undermining some of the benefits of such programs. But the latest study does not support this argument. Rather, it suggests that PEPFAR helped prevent additional deaths from causes other than HIV/AIDS.

“Whether disease-specific programs like PEPFAR have synergies with other health improvement efforts – or instead undermine them, as some have worried – is really an open question,” Miller said. “There are reasons to think either scenario is possible, and more research is needed. We don’t find much evidence of PEPFAR undercutting other initiatives. If anything, we see hints of synergies.”



Bendavid said the program managed to accomplish the reduction in mortality in the face of enormous challenges – from persuading people to go for HIV testing and treatment to dealing with problems of drug shortages and drug resistance.

Historically, few other large-scale health initiatives have succeeded to such an extent. Smallpox, which was eradicated by 1979, is among the rare and more notable examples.

“PEPFAR’s success with HIV … may be considered the clearest demonstration of aid’s effectiveness in recent years,” the researchers concluded.

In 2009, PEPFAR was folded into a new Global Health Initiative that calls for a broader agenda, with some resources redistributed to other programs, such as maternal and child health.

Its budget, which rose dramatically in the early years, has remained relatively flat or declined slightly since then. It peaked at $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2010, then declined to $6.7 billion and $6.6 billion in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively, according to figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Obama administration’s budget request for the 2013 fiscal year is $6.4 billion.

While the program appears to have had an impact within a few years of its implementation, Bendavid noted that reduced investments in fighting AIDS, both through PEPFAR and other international aid programs, could have implications for the future of the epidemic.

“We are transforming the face of the epidemic but funding shortfalls will change the road ahead,” he said.



Ruthann Richter is Director of Media Relations for the Stanford School of Medicine.

Retraction: In June 2012, Stanford researchers Rajaie Batniji and Eran Bendavid retracted the research findings explained in the following article. Their findings, presented in the essay, "Does development assistance for health really displace government health spending? Reassessing the evidence," contained errors in statistical model choice and reporting. The essay was published May 8, 2012, by the journal PLoS Medicine. The researchers erroneously concluded that there was no significant displacement of foreign aid. When they discovered their mistake, they informed editors at PLoS Medicine and moved to correct the record. The editors agreed with the need for the retraction and accepted the authors’ explanation of their error. The retraction can be read at www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001214.

When a 2010 study concluded that about half the money given to international governments for providing health care services isn’t used as intended, skeptics who argued that foreign aid is largely wasted were handed a powerful piece of data to bolster their claims.

But Stanford researchers Rajaie S. Batniji and Eran Bendavid say those findings are flawed. In an article featured in the May 8th edition of PLoS Medicine, Batniji and Bendavid say the two-year-old study by researchers at the University of Washington should not be used to guide decisions about how much money to give and who should get it.

“We can’t say that there’s absolutely no displacement of foreign aid, but these earlier findings are too tenuous for the basis of policy,” said Batniji, an affiliate of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Batniji and Bendavid, an affiliate of FSI’s Stanford Health Policy and an assistant professor of medicine, are taking on the 2010 study – which appeared in the Lancet – at a critical time for foreign assistance programs.

The United States, which gives about half of all the world’s health aid, plans to chop its $10 billion budget by about 4 percent in the coming fiscal year. That’s the first cut in more than a decade. And officials have shown no signs of switching their preference of bypassing national governments as recipients of health aid, funneling more than half of U.S. support to non-governmental organizations instead.

Batniji and Bendavid decided to re-analyze the data used by the University of Washington researchers after meeting with policymakers who pointed to the study as a cautionary tale of foreign governments that waste and mismanage money earmarked for health programs.

“People were citing the Lancet piece, saying this was starting to shape how they thought about giving money,” said Batniji, who is also a resident physician at Stanford Medical Center. “But when we started asking questions about what the actual displacement looks like, the answers didn’t seem very compelling or reasonable.”

Taking a fresh look at the same numbers used for the 2010 study – public financing data culled from the World Health Organization and the International Monetary Fund – the researchers saw a different story emerge about the use of foreign aid in the health sector.

Once Batniji and Bendavid excluded conflicting and outlying data, such as huge discrepancies between WHO and IMF estimates and information about countries that were getting very small amounts of money from other countries, “there was no significant displacement of foreign aid,” Bendavid said.

The Stanford researchers’ findings are poised to influence a debate among policymakers and donors over whether it’s more efficient to give international assistance slated for health spending to government agencies or NGOs.

“We want to free donors of feeling that if they give money directly to governments, the money will be offset and used for an unintended purpose,” Batniji said. “The concern about displacement really amplifies the demands we make on governments for how they use the money. And that is at odds with a recent movement to let foreign governments set their own agendas for how to spend money.”

The research conducted by Batniji and Bendavid was supported by FSI’s Global Underdevelopment Action Fund and the Dr. George Rosenkranz Prize awarded to Bendavid in 2010.

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.