Looking Ahead: Global Health Threats in 2019

The past year felt turbulent across many facets of life- global health included. Between threats to health from climate change, infectious disease outbreaks, the opioid crisis, threats to healthcare in war zones, and the ever-present health risks of noncommunicable diseases, global health resources are stretched thin. The coming year promises to be just as challenging.

Many global health organizations, such as the World Health Organization and IntraHealth, release reports on health risks to look out for at the start of each year. Between these lists, there is significant overlap, suggesting that the problems in global health are not a matter of lack of data or direction, but poor prioritization and lack of resources. Pollution and climate change rank high on almost all such lists; the WHO reports that 90% of people breathe polluted air on a daily basis. As a result, the WHO considers air pollution the greatest environmental threat to health for 2019- a significant step considering the threats of water pollution and other environmental contaminants. As with most global health issues, the world’s poorest people are hit the hardest. Nearly nine in ten of global deaths due to inhaled pollutants are in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), due to entirely preventable causes like poor regulation of transport emissions and using gas-powered cookstoves in homes.

Another problem heavily featured in the forecasting reports for 2019 include health risks due to conflict. More than 1 in 5 people across the globe (22%) live in a conflict-affected environment. These are the populations least likely to meet health and development targets, like the Sustainable Development Goals. Specific conflicts are high on the radar of global health officials, especially Yemen and Syria. Both countries have experienced heavy destruction of their existing health infrastructure, brain drain of medical personnel, and tangential struggles that bode poorly for health, such as food insecurity and poor sanitation. Dogged efforts by both local and international humanitarian workers have been able to stave off many public health disasters in such environments, but as wars proliferate and donor attention drifts, only the most pressing issues can be addressed. For example, in Yemen, an unprecedented multi-wave cholera outbreakled to more than 1 million cases of cholera. Of these cases, 30% were children. An effort by many international and local NGOs to distribute vaccines to these cases likely decreased the death toll, but the existing malnutrition of the population coupled with factors like destroyed water supplies exacerbated the outbreak and accelerated the need for resources and personnel.

Risks from infectious disease are typically present throughout global health forecasts, and this coming year was no different. In fact, for the first time, the WHO considers vaccine hesitancy, which they define as the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines, to be a public health risk that threatens to undo decades of work eradicating diseases that, until quite recently, affected people around the world. Vaccine hesitancy is thought to be one of the factors that has led to a 30% increase in global measles cases. Outbreaks of Ebola have shown how dangerous and fast-moving an infectious disease can be, even with the health workers tasked with treating ill patients. Resurgence of polio in war-torn Syria was only dissipated through a massive vaccination effort. The growing threats from influenza, Dengue, Zika, MERS, SARS, and many other diseases have raised the alarm as to how well global public health processes are able to deal with a potentially catastrophic pandemic. Unfortunately, another global health risk identified by the WHO is antimicrobial resistance for the types of antibiotics that, for decades, have saved the lives of millions. This could cause currently treatable infections like pneumonia, gonorrhea, and salmonellosis to be as dangerous as in times before antibiotics were available. One such infection, tuberculosis, affects 10 million people per year and kills almost 20% of those afflicted. In 2017, almost 500,000 cases of tuberculosis were classified as “multi-drug resistant.”

It’s not all bad news. Overall, global health trends are moving in a generally positive direction. Global life expectancy has increased by 5 years since 2000. Every day, more people will be able to access clean water, electricity, and the internet. Global child mortality has fallen by almost 15% since 1960, while global extreme poverty has fallen to less than 10%, an almost 30% decrease from just three decades ago. Almost 90% of children receive the DTP vaccine before their first birthday. However, progress is uneven, and for many is too slow. Many experts believe that some of the long-simmering global health concerns of the past few decades may be coming to a head as 2019 begins.

For anyone concerned with global health, these risk forecasts can seem dire. Even under the best of conditions, most initiatives set to tackle these risks can at best hope to minimize, and not completely eradicate, the threats from these challenges. The MDGs and SDGs are an important first step in setting a global agenda that puts the social welfare of populations at the front and center, and such efforts must continue. Yet, policymakers cannot ignore the many countries around the world that continuously fail to meet minimum standards of health and well-being. We cannot decouple the political and economic circumstances that lead to failures in global health progress. Short-term aid packages are a necessary salve, but not a sustainable solution. Many global health advocates contend that putting health and well-being at the center of state strategic planning would cascade into positive indicators in all aspects of life, such as food security, education outcomes, economic development, and inter-state diplomacy and coordination. To ensure that we are poised to meet the known and still unknown risks that may come in the coming years, global health must be a primary consideration.

Tick, tick, tick: Reflections from this year’s annual meeting

Tick, tick, tick.

The ticking of Dr. Victor Sidel’s metronome resonated throughout the large ballroom where a reception in his honor was held during the first days of the 2018 APHA Annual Meeting in San Diego. Dr. Sidel, a formative figure in the field of public health and a past president of APHA, died earlier this year after spending his career as a physician vigorously defending the rights of the world’s most vulnerable populations. The beats of the metronome, which he used to punctuate his presentations and speeches since the 1980s, were meant to represent the social disparities inherent in global public health. One tick meant that somewhere in the world, a child was dying due to preventable illness. One tick also represented tens of thousands of dollars spent in weapons sales. Among Dr. Sidel’s published works included seminal books such as War and Public Health and Social Injustice and Public Health, both edited by his longtime collaborator Dr. Barry Levy, who spoke at the APHA reception to honor his colleague. At a prior eulogy for Dr. Sidel, Dr. Levy summed up the body of work that had driven them for decades: “Vic taught us that health, peace and social justice were not isolated concepts, but tightly woven together. I can still hear him saying there cannot be health without peace and social justice, and there cannot be peace and social justice without health.” In many ways, the 2018 APHA conference showed just how deeply these intersections between health, peace, and social justice have been woven into the fabric of the organization, starting with honoring Dr. Sidel, continuing with the breadth and diversity of panels and posters, and concluding with a number of resolutions that were adopted.

Many panels examining various aspects of health and social justice were available throughout the conference. The International Health Section sponsored panels on topics like global health and human rights, equity in global women’s health and maternal, neonatal, and child health, health and war in countries like Yemen, Mexico, Syria, and Gaza, and refugee health. The Peace Caucus sponsored several complementary panels on topics of war and public health, militarization of the border, and violence on indigenous women, along with a presentation from the joint Lancet- American University of Beirut Commission on Syria. The Human Rights Caucus also presented panels on sexual and reproductive rights, as well as issues of health governance and advocacy. A search through the 2018 conference program found topics like environmental justice, worker’s rights, racial disparities, the rights of the incarcerated, and many other issues of social and health justice presented throughout hundreds of panels, roundtables, and posters.

More than many other health-related organizations and associations, APHA has long served as an advocacy platform for the pressing social issues of the time, recognizing the depth of issues that influence public health. While many APHA resolutions address topics traditionally associated with clinical outcomes, like smoking, diet, and reproductive health, combing through the decades of policy statements on the APHA Database shows positions on timely and controversial issues like opposing military action in Afghanistan and Central Asia in 2002, ensuring access to health services for undocumented immigrants in 1994, and raising concerns about the health impacts of fracking in 2012. This year was no different, with a total of 12 new policy statements adopted, many directly focusing on contemporary issues of social justice such as opposing family-child separations at the US border and addressing police violence as a public health issue.

The latter topic was first brought to APHA in 2016, where a collective of authors, motivated by grassroots organizing against state violence, recognized the significance of a national public health entity taking a strong position on the issue. While the resolution passed the APHA Governing Council vote overwhelmingly in San Diego (87% to 13%), just last year it was voted down by a 30-point margin (35% to 65%). A year of collaborative work on drafting and promoting the statement resulted in this year’s triumphant victory, which was crafted to specifically point to the public health implications of the “underlying conditions of the institutions, systems, and society we live in that determine our health outcomes,” according to the End Police Violence Collective. For them, APHA recognition of this resolution “is one more tool that organizers against law enforcement violence can use to pressure their elected officials.” This success, they state, is also portending a needed shift in public health from focusing primarily on behavioral interventions to considering structural ones as well. APHA’s role as a representative of the field of public health makes its willingness to frame public health inequities as social justice issues significant. Despite the two-year trajectory of this resolution within APHA, the Collective maintains that “this work has been ongoing for generations, in communities organizing to draw attention to, intervene on, and rebuild after experiences of law enforcement violence. This statement is a product of those generations of work. It is an important step. But there is more work to be done.”

A reminder of work to be done may be seen in another resolution that came before the governing council but was not met with the same cheers and jubilation. Members from the International Health Section, including Dr. Kevin Sykes, the Chair of the Advocacy and Policy Committee for the IH Section, and well-known scholars of war and public health Leonard Rubenstein and Dr. Amy Hagopian, put forward “A Call to end to attacks on health workers and health facilities in war and armed conflict settings.” Incidentally, the latter two authors have both been recipients of the APHA Victor Sidel and Barry Levy Award for Peace, in 2011 and 2018, respectively. The statement was introduced as a latebreaker due to the accelerated pace of attacks on health workers in 2017, as detailed by a report published by Safeguarding Health in Conflict, a coalition of which APHA is a member, and received several endorsements from multiple APHA components, including from the Peace Caucus, the Occupational Health and Safety Section, and the Forum on Human Rights. However, opposition to some of the specific details of the statement, especially those regarding Israel, led to a contentious process that culminated in little floor debate on the merits of the resolution and, ultimately, the governing council voted no (25% to 75%). Dr. Hagopian echoed the sentiments of the End Police Violence Collective when discussing the importance of APHA taking a stance on issues of social justice, despite what she sees as the sometimes conservative stance of the governing council when it comes to controversial issues. “People working to make the world a better place need all the support they can get- both this sort of written, academic association support as well as political support out in the world. When they can cite the APHA, as the largest and longest stand public health organization in the country, as being on board, that carries weight.” As a result, Dr. Hagopian plans to revise the statement and resubmit it for next year’s APHA conference in Philadelphia. Upon receiving the Award for Peace at the IH Section Awards Ceremony this year, she said “It’s important to be on the right side of history, early and often. So we’ll be back another day.”

Tick, tick, tick.  

The Man-Made Health Crisis in Yemen Cannot Wait for the End of the War: What Can Humanitarian Actors Do?

In 2017, only a few years into a brutal civil war, Yemen reported a cholera outbreak of one million cases, more than half of which were children, making it the worst outbreak in history. At the time, Yemen was already in the midst of what was considered a dire humanitarian crisis, with more than 20 million citizens affected. A year later, the situation has become even more critical, with the United Nations warning of “the worst famine in 100 years” within the next few months if the war continues. Many more Yemenis have died from lack of access to basic needs, such as clean water, food, medical care, and sanitation, than fighting.

Yemen was already considered one of the poorest countries in the world before the war, with low rankings on all indicators of human development. However, the war has completely devastated the nation and the health of its citizens. Multiple outbreaks of infectious disease such as cholera and malaria, high rates of food insecurity and malnutrition, tens of thousands of trauma-related injuries, and widespread mental distress have exhausted the healthcare system. Almost 80% of Yemeni children reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, an exceedingly high rate even when compared to other conflict-affected nations. Healthcare workers, many of whom have been unpaid for months or years, have been kidnapped, harassed, and killed, while hospitals have been directly attacked and bombed. Medical facilities are left with barely functional equipment, empty supply shelves, and sometimes no medical staff at all. One article detailed how the grandmothers of an infant born four months premature brought him to a hospital where they found no physicians, who had all walked out in protest the previous day after one of them was beaten up by one of the hospital guards. The grandmothers attempted to place the infant into an incubator themselves, but both machines were broken.

In April 2018, as long-term wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Sudan rage on, as a probable Rohingya genocide in Myanmar goes into its second year, and as natural disasters strike with increasing frequency and strength around the world, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called Yemen the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The International Rescue Committee reports that 16 million people (almost three quarters of the country’s population) cannot access basic medical care, with more than half of the country’s already limited health facilities destroyed. What is left of the health system is Yemen is almost entirely sustained by contributions of medicines, supplies, and money by international donors. An estimated 9.5 million people were provided some form of medical intervention by the WHO and their partners in 2017 alone. However, the politics of the conflict have rendered even this emergency care inconsistent and unreliable. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has occasionally had to cease providing services in some parts of the country due to sustained attacks on their facilities and staff by both Houthi fighters and Saudi warplanes. An intermittent Saudi blockade on Yemen’s ports has prevented humanitarian agencies from bringing in food, medicines, and fuel, and even when supplies can enter the country, distribution networks are insecure due to airstrikes and combatants. Like many of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, the devastating circumstances are almost entirely man-made. It is not lack of money or resources that has brought Yemen to this point- the entirety of the budget that the Yemen Ministry of Health proposed for 2018 amounts to just three days of what Saudi Arabia alone spends on the war campaign.

Yemen would not be the first country to see the health and well-being of its citizens used as a bargaining chip in an intractable conflict. Alex de Waal, a professor at Tufts University and the Executive Director of the World Peace Foundation, called these types of man-made famines and humanitarian emergencies “economic war,” which is much more difficult to classify under international humanitarian law than a violent bombing campaign or overt starvation tactics. “The coalition air strikes are not killing civilians in large numbers but they might be destroying the market and that kills many, many more people,” he told The New Yorker. Couple destroyed markets with ruined medical facilities and it is clear that the quality of life of human civilians will be devastated for the long term. This is by no means a new wartime strategy. Perpetrators try to bring their enemy -combatants and civilians who are in any way affiliated with them- to the brink of humanitarian desperation to force concessions.

What is needed is immediate and meaningful action on the part of the actors involved in the war as well as the international community that is both providing the weapons and aid that sustain the conflict. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, outlined three requests to ease the humanitarian burden in the country. First, he called for guaranteed safe access throughout all of Yemen so that aid agencies can provide goods and services. Second, he demanded an end to all attacks on health workers and facilities. Lastly, he insisted that civilian health workers who remain in Yemen must be paid for their vital services. Similarly, a report by the International Peace Institute recommends that the international community, especially the UN Security Council, enforce compliance to international humanitarian laws and norms. Humanitarian actors must also work to coordinate their responses by sharing data, involving local stakeholders, and collectively pushing against blockade efforts. While meeting immediate needs is the clear priority, prevention and long-term health capacity building must also be pursued to both avert widespread catastrophe and prepare for the Yemen that will remain after the war ends. None of these actions must wait for a political end to the war, which is the only way to truly protect civilian life and ensure basic access to the human rights of food, water, sanitation, and health. However, these actions can push back against efforts by all sides of the conflict to use the health and well-being of Yemen’s citizens as pawns in the achievement of their aims.

 

An “epidemic of poor quality”: New study finds that poor healthcare quality leads to millions of deaths globally

This is part 1 of a 4-part series on global healthcare quality.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the global effort led by the United Nations to prioritize and standardize development goals in every country for the period 2015-2030, offer ambitious targets when it comes to the world’s health. SDG 3 is focused entirely on outcomes of health and well-being, such as reducing maternal mortality, ending diseases like AIDS and malaria, achieving universal health coverage (UHC), and ensuring universal access to reproductive health care. Other SDGs, such as Goal 2 which calls for zero hunger and Goal 6 that aims for universal and equitable access to safe drinking water as well as equal and adequate access to sanitation, have obvious implications for health. However, a recent Lancet Global Health Commission, chaired by Associate Professor of Global Health Dr. Margaret Kruk of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has come to some surprising conclusions about health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite a push in humanitarian advocacy and research to focus on increasing healthcare access in LMIC, it is the quality of healthcare that is received by patients in these environments that may require more of our attention. The Commission estimates that as many as 5 million die each year because they are receiving poor-quality healthcare- more than a million more people than those who die due to no access to care at all (3.6 million). That means that annually, 8.6 million people living in LMIC are dying due to poor-quality healthcare systems. Poor quality care can be dangerous for patients, provides misleading data points about healthcare system improvements, and may support corrupt and fraudulent behavior by parties with power in the health sector. Is it possible to achieve the SDGs in this environment?

Health systems should be judged on “what they do for people- not how many doctors they train.”

Dr. Kruk describes quality healthcare systems as based on three factors: effective care, trust of the people, and a system that is able to adapt, both in cases of acute emergencies and with a longer-term vision. While many advancements in access can be supported by metrics, it is possible that we haven’t been measuring some of the factors that really matter. Dr. Kruk told NPR that health systems should be judged on “what they do for people- not how many doctors they train.” The Commission’s study, which was published by the Lancet earlier this month, found that the millions of deaths each year that can be attributed to poor health systems included many deaths due to factors the SDGs explicitly seek to reduce, such as neonatal conditions and traffic accidents. While one of the central tenets of SDG 3 is UHC, the Commission argues that the quality of care “is not yet sufficiently recognized in the global discourse on UHC” and that countries undertaking policies that bring them to UHC “must put better quality on par with expanded coverage” to improve health. The Commission identifies several individual initiatives in LMIC that are developing mechanisms for quality measurement and improvement. However, it is clear that improving the quality of care has not received the effort that expanding access to care has achieved, which will undoubtedly undermine efforts to achieve the SDGs, even if UHC is attained. While expanding access to care must remain a global priority, we cannot discount the need to ensure that care given is of high quality as well. Several studies from LMIC during the period of the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) suggested that in some instances, expanding access to care did not lead to more positive health outcomes because the quality of the care received was poor. However, we still do not even have highly rigorous and consistent tools with which to measure healthcare quality across global contexts in a way that would allow for standardized measures and generalizable conclusions.

Aside from the historical focus on access to care by humanitarian and governmental actors, there a few other reasons that quality of care has not received the appropriate amount of attention of donors and policymakers. Healthcare systems in LMIC are generally disintegrated, with pockets of government services, humanitarian agencies, and private facilities operating throughout the country. This complexity allows for the intrusion of many political and logistical barriers to providing high quality care consistently. In the public sector, corrupt bureaucrats may opt to control who is able to receive jobs at healthcare facilities rather than allow for a merit-based system where poorly qualified staff could be replaced by qualified employees, regardless of political factors. For-profit providers who have disparate financial interests may not properly follow treatment or diagnosis guidelines that are critical to quality care. However, entirely closing low quality facilities would leave some citizens with no access to care at all.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, published a response to the Lancet Commission, agreeing that “nothing less than a revolution” is needed to ensure that high quality care is delivered in every health system around the world, an essential component of SDG 3. He posits that poor data is one of the largest barriers to improving healthcare quality, arguing that we must “go beyond counting simply what services are delivered to measuring how they are delivered.” He calls for a “global learning laboratory for quality,” where local lessons based on the “messy realities of health services” are prioritized, but where these lessons are then disseminated and can be implemented, measured, and compared in contexts around the world. Policymakers and practitioners working in LMIC must consider these factors when designing and implementing health services or research studies. The Lancet Commission points to five distinct foundations where learning and improvement in the process of care leads to higher quality: the needs of the population, governance in the health and non-health sectors, platforms of care, the healthcare workforce, and the tools needed to provide quality care. To avoid the rising “epidemic of poor quality” that the Commission found and to put LMIC on a successful path to achieving the SDGs, we can no longer ignore the pressing need to address healthcare quality just as much as access.

Attacks on Healthcare are Beyond the Limits of War

In the spring of 2016, the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2286, which had been cosponsored by more than 80 Member States. The issue behind the Resolution, which brought such overwhelming support from a sometimes fractious body, was the increase in attacks on medical staff and facilities in conflict zones. The Resolution was broad, covering attacks or threats against patients, personnel, transportation mechanisms, and medical facilities. It emphasized that such attacks are not only detrimental to those immediately affected, but for the long-term consequences on already fragile health outcomes and systems. Of course, these protections are not new, codified by the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and the Additional Protocols from 1977 and 2005. However, an unprecedented number of attacks on health, many of which were occurring in the same few countries, led to this new push to pressure antagonists to cease their attacks and provide medical and humanitarian personnel with their due protections under humanitarian and human rights law. “Even wars have rules,” said then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Despite the strong words from the UN and organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), little action was prompted by the newfound interest in health-related attacks. As a result, attacks have only increased since the year before the resolution was passed; while there were 256 attacks in 2015, there were 302 recorded attacks in 2016, 322 in 2017, and 149 attacks in the first quarter of 2018 alone. Not surprisingly, attacks in Syria propel the bulk of these numbers, with the Central African Republic, Pakistan, Libya, and Nigeria rounding out the top five countries featuring attacks in 2017. Of course, with the imperfect methods of collecting data in these fragile countries, as well as fears of witnesses or survivors to speak out about perpetrators, it is likely that more threats and attacks exist than can be captured by these data. In fact, as attacks continue and even proliferate, medical workers who risk their lives documenting attacks and their outcomes have questioned whether their work is worthwhile.

In these fragile countries, where access to health care is vital in maintaining a civilian population’s ability to stay, fifty-six health programs were closed due to increased insecurity to the facilities and staff in 2017. Ambulances are destroyed or hijacked. Health workers are arrested or kidnapped. Some countries have attacks that are more specific to the nature of their conflict- for example, the occupied Palestinian Territories, where movement restrictions are common, reported the highest numbers for obstruction to the provision of healthcare. In countries affected by polio, such as Nigeria, vaccination efforts are common targets of attacks. Countries where terrorist groups such as the Islamic State reside see reports of fighters disguised as medical personnel to attack or occupy hospitals. While the mechanism of attack differs, the outcomes are the same: terrorized civilians, diminished health infrastructure, demoralized health workers, prolonged conflict, and a frustrated but ultimately immobilized international community.

Despite these grim reports, there are still actions that can be taken by stakeholders of all levels that can hope to at least minimize these attacks. A two-pronged approach is required: one focusing on investigation and the other on penalties. First, a robust investigation and data collection mechanism must be developed and, most importantly, implemented where needed. MSF president Joanne Liu urged the UN Security Council to conduct robust, independent, and impartial investigations of such attacks, noting that previous calls for such initiatives have been disregarded. In almost all cases where investigations are conducted, they are led and settled by the perpetrator themselves. Independent, well-funded, and rigorous investigations, coupled with new methods of surveying and interviewing witnesses and survivors, should be supported by the UN and civil society in such nations. Additionally, it is apparent that such attacks persist due to the lack of consequences on offenders. Perpetrators on or allied with members of the UN Security Council would be tasked with condemning or punishing themselves and each other, unlikely in the current environment of norms in the international order. While a strengthening of the commitment of states to international humanitarian law is long overdue, in the meantime, action is not necessarily limited to the walls of the UN. Some humanitarian organizations, such as Oxfam, are taking a more direct approach, petitioning states to stop selling arms to countries that have used these weapons to attack civilian infrastructure like hospitals.

Addressing the World Humanitarian Summit in 2015, ICRC President Peter Maurer said “Wars without limits are wars without end. Limiting wars is an intrinsic test of our civilization, and probably of all civilized worlds.” Public health advocates must insist that the international community draws a line on protecting those serving the world’s most vulnerable in the most challenging environments imaginable. While war may be inevitable, the erasure of the human rights of those involved is entirely preventable through collective advocacy and action. Much of the needed action lies at the institutional level, but individuals concerned with these issues can follow social media campaigns like #NotATarget, started by the UN and the theme of World Humanitarian Day 2017, or support NGOs tasked with delivering healthcare in conflict environments, either on the local level or with international organizations such as the ICRC and MSF. Lastly, organizations like Safeguarding Health in Conflict, Insecurity Insight, and Physicians for Human Rights produce data and reports about these issues that can be used to direct advocacy or propel research efforts.