Global Pulse Blog

Kaiser Family Foundation recently held a webcast on “The Future of US Multilateral Engagement on Global Health“ as part of the Foundation’s US Global Health Policy: In Focus live webcast series. This question and answer format webcast featured an expert panel including Mark Abdoo the director for Global Health and Food Security, Natasha Bilimoria the president of Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and Jennifer Kates the vice president and director of Global Health Policy & HIV for the Kaiser Family Foundation, moderated by senior analyst Josh Michaud.

This discussion explores the approach taken by the United States to address Global Health funding historically and looking into the future. Discussions on global health funding often involve a division between bilateral approaches to funding versus multilateral funding engagement. Bilateral funding involves the provision of direct assistance from one government to, or for the benefit of, one or more other countries, with the donor having significant control over the target, approach and content of assistance. On the other hand, multilateral organizations such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Global Fund, bring together global stakeholders to develop and collaborate on global health targets.

Historically, the US has commonly supported global health priorities via bilateral funding and programs but the focus on promoting multilateral organizations is growing. For example, the US was the first and is currently the largest donor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and a key component of the Obama Administration’s Global Health Initiative includes a renewed and increased commitment to multilateral engagement. The shifting approach has led to questions regarding the appropriate focus for US global health engagement, the proper balance between multilateral and bilateral funding efforts and the appropriate role of the US government and other organizations in international treaties and other collaborative agreements.

Check out this and more global health-related webcasts and other valuable resources on global health policy at the http://www.kff.org/ website. A more detailed discussion on the US Government’s Global Health Policy Architecture is also available.

The UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals was held this past week in New York City. Occurring at a crucial time, with five years remaining until the 2015 deadline, world leaders met to discuss needed actions to reach the eight global development targets agreed to by the world’s countries and leading development institutions in September 2000 at the Millennium Summit when the United Nations Millennium Declaration was adopted, committing the UN nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets – with a deadline of 2015 – known as the Millennium Development Goals. The Millennium Development Goals include:

• End Poverty and Hunger
• Universal Education
• Gender Equality
• Child Health
• Maternal Health
• Combat HIV/AIDS
• Environmental Sustainability
• Global Partnership

The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010 summarizes the progress which has been made thus far while striving to meet these goals as well as potential actions, strategies and policies which could be implemented to continue positive progress.

80,000 – the number of manufactured chemicals in use in the US.

62,000 – chemicals that were “grandfathered” in by the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and therefore unstudied as to their health and environmental safety.

200 – chemicals tested for their safety under TSCA.

1,000,000+ tons – amount of Bisphenol A (BPA) consumed in the US in 2004, before widespread recognition of its multiple adverse health impacts.

The US public, and now the outsourced manufacturing hubs in China, India and other places worldwide, are essentially participating in a giant experimental trial with the chemicals in our foods, our clothes, our cleaners, plastics, and virtually everything we use.  H.R. 5820 the Toxic Chemical Safety Act, currently under consideration in Congress would begin the process of re-assessing the safety of these chemicals on the loose and replace the ineffective Toxic Substances Control Act.

The new legislation marks a shift in the regulatory philosophy towards new chemicals. Historically, the US favored self-regulation of the industry and allowed the industry to innovate without much concern for long-term effects. This new legislation follows the lead of the Precautionary Principle by beginning to assess the safety of products before they are released into the market.

Perhaps most troubling from a health perspective, aside from the fact that many of these molecules have not been tested for their long term chronic exposure safety, but that even with those that have been tested, few, if any, have had their safety assessed in the context of the myriad of other chemicals that we use on a daily basis. While it has shortcomings, HR 5820 is a step in the right direction.

For more info and perspectives see:

House Panel Tackles Chemical Legislation | EHS Today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-fletcher-harper/choose-life-the-religious_b_662234.html

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5820/show

http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2010/07/30/not-playing-nice-the-american-chemistry-council-solidifies-its-claim-to-being-the-industry-of-no/

http://mollyannaapproach.blogspot.com/2010/07/house-members-witnesses-clash-over.html

Global Health Watch 3
Examining the World’s Health from an Alternative Perspective
Call for Case Studies and Testimonies
Contribute to the Alternative World Health Report

The Global Health Watch provides a platform for activists  to share experiences and inform each other with practical examples and theoretical analyses  to strengthen local, national, regional and global campaigns towards  Health for All!

This is a great way to get involved with the People’s Health Movement from a research/academic standpoint.

How you can voice your views:

The Global Health Watch is putting out a call for the submission of country or region specific case studies and testimonies. These case studies and testimonies will form part of the electronic platform of the alternative world health and selected case studies shall also be incorporated into the final document of Global Health Watch 3 – scheduled for publication in 2011.

Some suggestions: Read the rest of this entry →

In January 2010 PLoS Medicine published a very interesting four-part weekly series on this subject.  I have posted a few excerpts below:

The study had three aims; (1) to advance current understanding of the interplay of actors in the system; (2) to evaluate its performance; and (3) to identify opportunities for improvement.

Read the rest of this entry →

Sisters Vidalia, left, and Maribel Agustin, who suffer from malnutrition, sit at a shelter in Guatemala in August.

Read the rest of this entry →

Last week in Seattle, the group known as the “Health 8″ — so named in reference to constituting the “G8″ of global health finance — met among a flurry of global health conferences and talks.  Sandi Doughton from the Seattle Times reports on who the Health 8 are, and whether the rest of us should care: Seattle Times article on Health 8.

Read health journalist Christine Gorman’s take on the Health 8 at the Global Health Report Blog (follow the “Related Post” link for a more detailed description of the group and what it is supposed to do).

Does the Health 8 represent the potential of high-level coordination for crafting better wide-reaching strategies?  Is it fair for some philanthropic organizations to get a seat at high-level tables while others don’t even know that the table is being set?  Where is there room for the voices of the people who are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiaries of global health funding?  Are evidence-based models being used?  What level of transparency is appropriate in such discussions?  Where do we draw the line between the institutionalized anarchy of uncoordinated NGO function on one hand, and secret meetings at which the fate of billions is quite literally decided on the other?  These are some questions in the air.