Global Health MD

Entries from July 2009

In Favor of a Global Fund for Maternal Health

July 29, 2009 · 1 Comment

“And we won’t confront illnesses in isolation – we will invest in public health systems that promote wellness, and focus on the health of mothers and children.”

These are words spoken by President Obama in his speech in Ghana on July 11, 2009. 2 points stand out in this statement – the need to focus on health systems and the need to address maternal mortality. The debate that ensues is the value of a Global Fund for Maternal Health. A frequently-discussed topic in the blogosphere, some are in favor and others opposed. Despite the potential challenges and historical weaknesses of such global initiatives, I am in favor of such a movement as long as we learn from the lessons of other Global Health Initiatives (GHI).

It is now well understood that to bring about sustainable progress in the health of developing countries, we need to invest in improving the health systems. The WHO for years has been harping on the need to invest in health systems and now has started to discuss the interplay between Global Health Initiatives (GHI) and health system development. The challenges of using a GHI to fund health systems are documented. Prior GHIs have been vertical and disease-specific which has had a negative impact on horizontal aspects of the health care system. GHIs have often left the country’s health systems in worse shape than when they started. As Obama said in his speech, “…because of incentives – often provided by donor nations – many African doctors and nurses understandably go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. This creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Ironically, ineffective health systems have often proven to be a hurdle for disease-specific GHIs to implement their activities effectively. 

The other challenge of GHIs is that the private organizations feel accountable to their donors and therefore prioritize the donor’s expectations over the long-term health needs of the country. Success is measured by reducing the burden of a specific disease, not increasing the health or life expectancy in the country. If donors have paid to reduce HIV, they want to see less burden of HIV in the population. They aren’t so interested in how many people in the population have access to primary care, regardless of how critical this access is to the well being of the people.

Why should we use a Global Fund as the means to address a global health issue? In the case of maternal health, I think these challenges are surmountable. Maternal health is not vertical, it’s horizontal. Addressing this issue is multi factorial and includes adequate access to primary care and acute care, it requires the availability of trained health care providers, and appropriate physical infrastructure to handle childbirth and it’s complications. Where disease-specific initiatives were funnelling people into specific parts of the health care system, a fund designed to address maternal health would need to address all critical components of the health care system. The brain-drain that Obama described would be plugged. As for competing priorities between pubic and private stakeholders, I think governments of developing countries and the WHO need to be major players in these GHIs to provide strategic direction not driven by donors but rather by the overall health of a country.

Why should we not just create a Global Fund to Improve Health Systems. Well, I’m not a marketing expert but it’s just not a romantic cause. Imagine trying to advocate to US citizens that they should spend on health systems around the world when even our own health system in the US is under fire. At least when advocating for maternal health you can bring to the table emotional cases of maternal mortality that present compelling reasons why health systems need to be fixed. Second, we have a moral obligation – no mother should die giving birth to a child. Giving life should not take a life. Third, it’s all in the numbers – childbirth is the leading cause of death for women in the developing world.

Global health issues are often interconnected, I think in this case we can capitalize on the complex nature of maternal health to improve much neglected health care systems in the developing world.

Categories: Global Health Initiatives · maternal health

Setting a High Bar for Prevention Programs in Developing Countries

July 17, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The British Medical Journal published a thought-provoking systematic review of breast cancer screening programs which revealed that up to 50% of cases identified represent an “overdiagnosis” which was defined as the “detection of cancers that will not cause death or symptoms”. The authors extracted data from previously conducted trials and estimated the incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of screening programs.

Let me just repeat this finding – over 50% of cases represented an overdiagnosis. This means over 50% of the time, money, time and emotions were spent on identifying a cancer that would not have caused any trouble.

In the context of global health, where we try to make the most of a little, and as we strive to expand and develop health systems in developing counties, this kind of data should caution us about starting large-scale prevention programs. While we ideally want to level the playing field and offer the same quality of care, I think we should be very cautious about spending on prevention programs. In many developing countries we have a long way to go in providing what we consider ‘standard of care’ for even the most common conditions. I think it’s very reasonable to have a high bar for money spent on prevention, especially interventions that are costly and involved such as mammograms.

Before we create populations of women who expect to get screened, let’s choose our interventions judiciously so that money spent on improving health care is spent where there is the best ‘value’ for money. This concept of ‘rationing’ health care (discussed in a recent New York Times article) is somewhat taboo to discuss in the US- but where health care resources are scant (such as in Africa) rationing is expected. We need good ‘bang for the buck’ where the bucks are scarce.

Essentially, this comes back to my comment that interventions in global health should be evidence-based…and where the evidence, is scant, I am suggesting we err on the side of being conservative on screening – the opportunity cost for that money is huge.

Categories: Uncategorized

Hope in eHealth

July 9, 2009 · 2 Comments

The term eHealth embodies great hope for those concerned about health care in the developing world. According to wikipedia eHealth is a relatively recent term for healthcare practice which is supported by electronic processes and communication. It includes services such as telemedicine, mHealth (the use of mobile devices in the provision of care) and EMRs.

Improving the quality of healthcare available to people in developing countries will require addressing many fundamental challenges which include:
- connecting rural providers to urban consultants for second opinions and diagnostic support
- connecting providers to information which will enable the practice of evidence-based medicine
- providing access to high-quality continuing educating for providers in all settings

I mention these few particular challenges as these are a few of the areas where eHealth solutions will surely be applied. There is enormous potential for the use of technology in solving the gaps in healthcare. Here are a few examples I recently came across:

  • The iphone is being used as a tool for telemedicine
  • The internet is being used in teleradiology between Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • Free online CME for French-speaking African countries

Obviously this is just a short list meant to crystallize the idea that the term eHealth embodies a new way of looking at problems and solutions in healthcare.

Would like to hear any other eHealth solutions being used to address global health issues.

Categories: eHealth · telemedicine