13 Years to Eliminate Morbidity and Mortality due to Viral Hepatitis- Global Partners Believe It Can Be Done!

The liver processes nutrients, helps to fight against infection, and aids in cleaning the blood in our bodies. Inflammation of the liver is generally known as hepatitis. Although hepatitis can be caused by autoimmune disorders, occur as a result of excessive alcohol consumption, or become induced after a toxin is introduced into the liver, the hepatitis of most concern has a viral origin. While there are 5 main viruses (Hepatitis A-E), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) are responsible for the majority of morbidity and mortality cases associated with viral hepatitis infections globally- this is comparable to HIV/AIDS and TB, killing 1.34 million people a year. Hepatitis can either be acute (i.e. a short-term illness within 6 months of infection) or chronic. 75-80% of individuals infected with HCV will develop a chronic infection. The likelihood of HBV becoming chronic largely depends on the age at which infection occurs. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 90% of infants, 25-50% of children between 1-5 years of age, and 6-10% of individuals over 5 years of age will develop chronic HBV. Although the majority of individuals are diagnosed at a young age, younger age groups are less likely to show symptoms.

Currently, there are 240 million people living with chronic HBV and 130-150 million people with chronic HCV around the world.

Risk factors for HBV and HCV include:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are differences in global burden of disease trends for HCV and HBV:

  • HCV: Affects all regions although there are significant differences between and within countries. The WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region and the European Region have the highest reported prevalence of HCV.
  • HBV: Mostly affects the WHO African Region and the Western Pacific Region

The number of cases of hepatitis that are diagnosed increases every year as well as deaths, which have increased by 50% over the past 20 years. Even worse, most people with hepatitis are asymptomatic in the acute stage and the beginning of the chronic stage- those with symptoms may have fever, jaundice, loss of appetite, grey stools, dark urine, and abdominal pain.  Although a vaccine is only available to protect against HBV, effective treatment options exist for both chronic HBV and HCV. This is an important reality since therapy and proper case management can reduce the risk of complications such as cirrhosis, liver cancer, and premature death that are caused by chronic hepatitis infection. Access strategies supported by the WHO in 13 countries have helped more middle-income countries receive necessary medications such as Directing Acting Antirals (DAA). These drugs have a cure rate of over 95% within a 3-month timeframe, for HCV, and less side effects than other drugs- but 80% of HCV cases still have difficulties accessing the treatment and case management they need because it can be expensive. The WHO released the report, “Global Report on Access to Hepatitis C Treatment: Focus on Overcoming Barriers,” which discussed the importance of political mobilization, advocacy, and pricing negotiations on increasing access to necessary medications in low-middle income countries. Local, more cost-effective medications have even been manufactured in a few countries. In order to address the 80% of people still in need of help, in May 2016, at the World Health Assembly, 194 countries adopted the Global Health Sector Strategy on Viral Hepatitis with the goal of eliminating hepatitis by 2030. DAAs were also added to the List of Essential Medicines.

Information from the global strategy is incorporated into World Hepatitis Day activities. World Hepatitis Day occurs on July 28th every year and is focused on raising awareness about the global burden of viral hepatitis as well as the prevention and treatment options that exist. Watch these short videos to learn more about the WHO’s global strategy and the theme for this year!

Five minutes of your time could impact Senate health care funding decisions

Posted on behalf of Paul Freeman, IH Section Action Board Representative.


We urge you to ring your local Senator to encourage them NOT to vote in favor of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) currently being considered by the Senate. If only a few more Senators oppose the Act it will not pass.

The evidence is that senators are influenced by phone calls and letters from their local voting constituents. Cumulatively, individual approaches can influence them as much as those from large organizations that they may see as not affecting local voting.

To reach your senators, ring the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. You should mention your postcode and your residence there and you will be put through to the appropriate senator’s office.  All you need to do then is again mention: who you are, your residence in their electorate, your health expertise and calmly and civilly your health concerns in as short as a few minutes.

A few key talking points against this Act:

  • According to the June 26 analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Better Care Reconciliation Act would result in 22 million Americans, including children, losing health insurance coverage by 2026.
  • The Act would greatly cut funding through the Prevention and Public Health Fund. 
  • It is critical to maintain this funding which makes up more than 12 percent of the budget at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Better Care Reconciliation Act would eliminate the prevention fund placing our nation’s health security at risk especially from new infectious disease outbreaks either man made by terrorists or occurring naturally.  The financial costs of epidemics can far out weight those in preventing them.
  • Ongoing international cooperation, epidemic surveillance and timely vaccine development and modernization of systems is needed in an ongoing manner to prevent and rapidly respond to such epidemics as the recent Zika, and Ebola outbreaks. Unchecked infectious epidemics can reach the magnitude of the Spanish flu which killed over 50 million people in 1918. Similar could well occur again if we are unprepared.
  • The Better Care Reconciliation Act would allow states to opt-out of requiring health plans to cover the 10 essential health benefits such as maternity care, mental health and substance abuse disorder services and prescription drug coverage.
  • This provision would likely lead to significantly higher out-of-pocket costs for consumers who can only afford plans that may not cover the services they will need. 
  • The BCRA would phase out the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, cut federal contributions to Medicaid by $722 billion over 10 years, and starting in 2025, would cut the federal contribution to Medicaid even deeper than the House-passed bill.

Learn more on APHA’s Health Reform page here or visit APHA’s Take Action! website.

Mark Green: USAID pick could be a silver lining if he does it right

This post was developed collaboratively by the Section’s Communications Committee.


The Trump administration’s nomination of Mark Green, former congressman, ambassador, and frequent NGO board-sitter, was one of those hard-to-find silver linings in the current political thunderstorm (or downward spiral, if you prefer). He is a political unicorn of sorts, enjoying both bipartisan support from Congress and respect from development professionals, someone who knows how to navigate both the political and technical aspects of the job. Green, a four-term Congressional representative from Wisconsin, also served as the ambassador to Tanzania under George W. Bush and was involved with the creation of PEPFAR. He has served on the board of directors for Malaria No More and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a bilateral aid agency that administers grants to countries for recipient-led initiatives based on a series of economic and governance indicators. He is currently the president of the International Republican Institute, which promotes democracy, civil society, and good governance practices abroad. Politicians like him, old USAID hats like him, think tanks like him – even aid groups (including ONE and Save the Children) like him.

All of this is lovely, but hold the champagne. The inevitable next question is, what will Mark Green be able to accomplish as head of a hamstrung agency with no money?

As many have been quick to point out, USAID is not without its problems and could benefit from some major reforms. The agency has certainly not been immune to criticism from global health and development commentators, including this Section. Many of its programs have been of questionable utility or badly managed (or both), and it has been slow to respond to calls for its programs to be rigorously and transparently evaluated.

However, USAID may at this point be facing a more fundamental, existential crisis. Explains the AP, “[t]he agency faces a starkly uncertain future, including potentially big budget cuts and the possibility of being folded entirely into a restructured State Department.”

Restructured” in this case meaning disorganized, rudderless, and full of disgruntled and anxious employees.

An additional wrench was thrown in this week (although completely buried under ever more sensationalist headlines) with the announcement that the Global Gag Rule would be expanded to apply to all global health programs:

[T]he State Department [Monday] confirmed that, indeed, a massive expansion of the Global Gag Rule is underway. Whereas previous iterations of the Global Gag Rule only affected funds earmarked for reproductive health, the Trump version encapsulates all US global health programs. This includes programs for AIDS, Malaria, Measles, cancer care, diabetes, child nutrition — everything except emergency humanitarian relief.

In monetary terms, this expands the scope of the Global Gag Rule from about $600 million in reproductive health assistance to $8.8 billion in global health assistance around the world, including the $6 billion anti-AIDS program created by President George W. Bush known as PEPfAR.

So even if Congress pushes back against the administration to preserve USAID’s budget, Mr. Green may not have any recipients to give the money to.

What’s next for US global health funding?

On April 30th, a bipartisan budget deal was passed which will keep the US government funded through the end of September this year. Although funding for global health programs remains largely intact this year (in some cases, budgets have even increased), the future of US global health funding is looking pretty bleak.

Trump’s “skinny budget” proposal for fiscal year 2018 includes steep cuts of nearly 30% to foreign aid and diplomacy delivered through the Department of State. Additionally Trump’s budget proposes cuts to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies, multilateral development banks like the World Bank, and the complete elimination of funding for the Fogarty International Center. And while we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief knowing that malaria programs, PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and Gavi have been spared, the proposed 25% cut to global health programs is disconcerting to all of us within the international development and global health community.

Although such dramatic cuts in US foreign aid spending impacting global health are rightfully shocking, a recent study published in the Lancet shows that financing for global health programs by all development agencies (which includes bilateral (government to government) assistance, multilateral development banks, international NGOs, and others) has already been slowing significantly in recent years. Between 2010 and 2016, development assistance for health grew annually at only 1.8% compared to 11.3% in the first decade in the millennium and 4.6% in the 1990s.

The United States is currently the largest contributor (in absolute dollar amounts) of bilateral foreign assistance even though we spent only 0.18% of our gross national income (GNI) in 2016 on foreign assistance. As a comparison, the OECD country which spent the most of its GNI on foreign assistance, Norway, spent 1.11%. (Just in case you’re curious, most of our federal tax dollars are budgeted toward defense, social security, and major health programs.)

With Trump touting an “America First” agenda and Americans grossly bigly overestimating the amount the US spends on foreign assistance (on average, those polled guessed 26%), it is probably safe to guess that the general public knows little about how foreign assistance can help contribute to a safer America. Although a majority of US foreign aid goes toward funding critical global health programs (including being the largest funder of HIV/AIDS projects), foreign aid isn’t completely altruistic. Foreign aid also helps bring peace and stability to countries where we can benefit from open trade and less volatile economies. In addition, foreign aid helps keep Americans healthy by preventing the global spread of deadly diseases.

In a recent op-ed for Time magazine, Bill Gates provides the proof in the pudding:

According to one study, political instability and violent activity in African countries with PEPFAR programs dropped 40 percent between 2004 and 2015. Where there was no PEPFAR program, the decline was just 3 percent.

….. A more stable world is good for everyone. But there are other ways that aid benefits Americans in particular. It strengthens markets for U.S. goods: of our top 15 trade partners, 11 are former aid recipients. It is also visible proof of America’s global leadership. Popular support for the U.S. is high in Africa, where aid has such a dramatic impact. When you help a mother save her child’s life, she never forgets. Withdrawing now would not only cost lives, it would create a leadership vacuum that others would happily fill.

As global financing for international health programs is expected to continue to slow, it is critical that the United States continues to provide foreign assistance not only because it keeps Americans safe and our economy healthy, but also because it is the right thing to do. While it’s true that foreign aid is in desperate need of extensive reform and that at some point a few low-income countries will be able to start financing a majority of their own health programs, change doesn’t happen overnight. Another Lancet study found that global spending on health is expected to increase from $9.21 trillion USD in 2014 to $24.24 trillion USD in 2040 with low-income countries growing at 1.8% and per capita spending expected to remain low. Failing to support global funding for health at adequate levels has serious consequences not only for the health and well-being of the millions of vulnerable individuals around the world who depend on our support, but in a world where we are inextricably linked, it also endangers the health and well-being of the American people.

The bipartisan deal reached by Congress provides a small glimmer of hope that Trump’s proposed cuts may be dead on arrival, but in such an unpredictable political climate, our collective cynicism is teaching us to expect the unexpected. Trump’s full budget proposal is expected to be released the week of May 22nd. Until then, let’s make sure we are fully prepared to fight in this uphill battle.

“You’re #fired”: Why the firing of the US @Surgeon_General matters to #globalhealth

This post was developed collaboratively by the Section’s Communications Committee.


The capital and the news media are in a collective tizzy over the abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey. Cable news chatter is reaching a fever pitch as talking heads make frequent references to Nixon’s Watergate, though we cannot yet know for sure whether Trump’s house of cards will fall the same way (or, frankly, why on earth he thought this was a good idea).

There is no shortage of rolling heads, and plenty of screaming headlines have rolled with them. While each decapitation dismissal is significant for its own reasons, one that has unfortunately not received as much attention was the firing of US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy at the end of April. Quiet chatter about the sacking has percolated through the domestic public health community, accompanied by a prickly letter from Senate Democrats last week demanding to know why Murthy was axed “[e]specially in light of your Administration’s pattern of politically motivated and ethically questionable personnel decisions.”

As this piece from Vox points out, the reasons why are pretty obvious:

Murthy…holds views on gun control that are at odds with those of the new administration. When President Obama nominated Murthy back in November 2013, the Senate blocked his nomination for more than a year, particularly after the National Rifle Association criticized a letter Murthy had co-signed in support of gun control measures.

Murthy was also a strong supporter of Obamacare. He co-founded Doctors for America in May 2009 — around the time the fight about the Affordable Care Act was heating up. “The country’s main doctor trade group, the American Medical Association, remained neutral on the Affordable Care Act. In founding Doctors for America, Murthy says he saw an opportunity to organize the doctors who very much did support Obamacare,” Sarah Kliff reported.

Most recently, Murthy’s office came out with a report that included clear, evidence-based suggestions about what steps need to be taken to combat the opioid epidemic — but Murthy wasn’t tapped to join President Trump’s recently announced opioid commission.

The implications for public health in the US are pretty obvious. However, this matters on the global health front as well – and not simply because the US is part of the global health picture. In addition to being “America’s doctor,” the surgeon general is in fact a kind of “general” of sorts (technically a vice admiral, equivalent to a lieutenant general). She or he leads the PHS Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service that deploys in public health emergencies, including global ones. PHS officers have deployed in response to humanitarian crises and global health pandemic responses including 2009 influenza pandemic, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the west Africa Ebola outbreak.

Past surgeons general have been vocal about the importance of global health. Perhaps more importantly, they also have a distinguished history of being a thorn in the side of the US presidents under which they serve by speaking truth to power on controversial public health issues. One of the most famous examples is C. Everett Koop’s educational brochure on AIDS that he mailed to every household in America in 1988, flying in the face of Reagan’s refusal to publicly reference anything related to the virus or its devastating epidemic. Considering that the position itself has relatively little authority, this kind of thought leadership that champions evidence-based approaches to public health problems, even when they are politically uncomfortable, is all the more important in a world that often looks to the US to set the standards for both science and practice in public health.

Of course, the next surgeon general’s ability to do that is limited under an administration led by a president who still acts like he’s the star of The Apprentice.

Since the election, there has been much (and very much justified) hand-wringing over clear global health setbacks, including looming budget cuts, the Global Gag Rule (and the future of reproductive rights in general), and the potential for ramped up defense spending to drive even more devastation to health through conflict. Doctors take an oath to always do what’s best for their patients. As public health professionals, we have a parallel responsibility to carry out our mission to benefit all people. Dr. Murthy’s legacy of fighting for every life – through his stances on gun control and affordable health care – are an example of this duty exercised faithfully. His final thoughts as surgeon general are striking:

We will only be successful in addressing addiction – and other illnesses – when we recognize the humanity within each of us. People are more than their disease. All of us are more than our worst mistakes. We must ensure our nation always reflects a fundamental value: every life matters.

While there is plenty to ring the alarm about outside the border, it is critical that those of us in global health also lend our voices to our public health allies whose work is focused stateside. We cannot afford to sit out US domestic public health issues, because they inevitably impact the whole world.