Search

Perhaps the most compelling Grand Challenge in health care is addressing diseases that primarily afflict the poor. Policies and practices conceived in high-income countries for improving the lives of patients in low-income countries have been criticized as ineffective or harmful. We examine the impact of one such policy, the World Trade Organization's 1994 Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was partly justified by a claim that patents and other intellectual property protections would improve the availability of drugs for "neglected diseases" such as malaria and tuberculosis. There is little evidence associating TRIPS with clinical trials, patents, or trade-in drugs for these diseases. One explanation for this is that basic science is required as a prerequisite to drug development. We theorize, test for, and find evidence that TRIPS encouraged the time-consuming and complex development of managerial institutions required for basic science on neglected diseases. The results indicate an increase in basic science on neglected diseases and in applied science on nonneglected diseases as countries became TRIPS compliant. In newly TRIPS-compliant, low-income countries, scientists intensified basic research on locally relevant diseases. We call for the application of management theories to grand challenges, and to the evaluation of policies such as TRIPS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On August 9th, 2001, the federal government of the United States announced a policy restricting federal funds available for research on human embryonic stem cell (hESCs) out of concern for the “vast ethical mine fields” associated with the creation of embryos for research purposes. Until the policy was repealed on March 9th, 2009, no U.S. federal funds were available for research on hESCs extracted after August 9, 2001, and only limited federal funds were available for research on a subset of hESC lines that had previously been extracted. This paper analyzes how the 2001 U.S. federal funding restrictions influenced the quantity and geography of peer-reviewed journal publications on hESC. The primary finding is that the 2001 policy did not have a significant aggregate effect on hESC research in the U.S. After a brief lag in early 2000s, U.S. hESC research maintained pace with other areas of stem cell and genetic research. The policy had several other consequences. First, it was tied to increased hESC research funding within the U.S. at the state level, leading to concentration of related activities in a relatively small number of states. Second, it stimulated increased collaborative research between US-based scientists and those in countries with flexible policies toward hESC research (including Canada, the U.K., Israel, China, Spain, and South Korea). Third, it encouraged independent hESC research in countries without restrictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scaling up innovative healthcare programs offers a means to improve access, quality, and health equity across multiple health areas. Despite large numbers of promising projects, little is known about successful efforts to scale up. This study examines trans-national scale, whereby a program operates in two or more countries. Trans-national scale is a distinct measure that reflects opportunities to replicate healthcare programs in multiple countries, thereby providing services to broader populations. Methods: Based on the Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI) database of nearly 1200 health programs, the study contrasts 116 programs that have achieved trans-national scale with 1,068 single-country programs. Data was collected on the programs' health focus, service activity, legal status, and funding sources, as well as the programs' locations (rural v. urban emphasis), and founding year; differences are reported with statistical significance. Findings: This analysis examines 116 programs that have achieved trans-national scale (TNS) across multiple disease areas and activity types. Compared to 1,068 single-country programs, we find that trans-nationally scaled programs are more donor-reliant; more likely to focus on targeted health needs such as HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria, or family planning rather than provide more comprehensive general care; and more likely to engage in activities that support healthcare services rather than provide direct clinical care. Conclusion: This work, based on a large data set of health programs, reports on trans-national scale with comparison to single-country programs. The work is a step towards understanding when programs are able to replicate their services as they attempt to expand health services for the poor across countries and health areas. A subset of these programs should be the subject of case studies to understand factors that affect the scaling process, particularly seeking to identify mechanisms that lead to improved health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]