How USA spends so much money to fight malaria in other nations

January 2, 2016

Fighting malaria is difficult, and complex, and expensive. No magic bullet can slow or stop malaria.

Reasonable people understand the stakes, not only for Africa, where $12 billion is lost every year to malaria illness and death, according to WHO records; but also for all nations who trade with Africa and other malaria endemic nations in the world.

What should we do about malaria?

Before we leap to solutions, let us look to see what the United States is already doing, according to USAID, the agency which has led U.S. malaria-fighting since the 1950s.

USAID explains on their website:

Fighting Malaria

A mother and child sit under the protection of malaria nets

A mother and child sit under the protection of malaria nets. Learn more about PMI’s contributions to the global fight against malaria. Maggie Hallahan Photography

Each year, malaria causes about 214 million cases and an estimated 438,000 deaths worldwide

While malaria mortality rates have dropped by 60 percent over the period 2000–2015, malaria remains a major cause of death among children. Although the disease is preventable and curable, it is estimated that a child dies every minute from malaria. In Asia and the Americas, malaria causes fewer severe illnesses and deaths, but antimalarial drug resistance is a serious and growing problem.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been committed to fighting malaria since the 1950s. Malaria prevention and control remains a major U.S. foreign assistance objective and supports the U.S. Government’s vision of ending preventable child and maternal deaths and ending extreme poverty. USAID works closely with national governments to build their capacity to prevent and treat the disease. USAID also invests in the discovery and development of new antimalarial drugs and malaria vaccines. USAID-supported malaria control activities are based on country-level assessments, and a combination of interventions are implemented to achieve the greatest public health impact – most importantly the reduction of maternal and child mortality. These interventions include:

  • Indoor residual spraying (IRS): IRS is the organized, timely spraying of an insecticide on the inside walls of houses or dwellings. It kills adult mosquitoes before they can transmit malaria parasites to another person.
  • Insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs): An insecticide-treated mosquito net hung over sleeping areas protects those sleeping under it by repelling mosquitoes and killing those that land on it.
  • Intermittent preventive treatment for pregnant women (IPTp): Approximately 125 million pregnant women annually are at risk of contracting malaria. IPTp involves the administration of at least two doses of an antimalarial drug to a pregnant woman, which protects her against maternal anemia and reduces the likelihood of low birth weight and perinatal death.
  • Diagnosis and treatment with lifesaving drugs: Effective case management entails diagnostic testing for malaria to ensure that all patients with malaria are properly identified and receive a quality-assured artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT).

The President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) works in 19 focus countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Greater Mekong Subregion in Asia. PMI is an interagency initiative led by USAID and implemented together with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2015, PMI launched its next 6-year strategy for 2015–2020, which takes into account the progress over the past decade and the new challenges that have arisen. It is also in line with the goals articulated in the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership’s second generation global malaria action plan, Action and Investment to Defeat Malaria (AIM) 2016–2030: for a Malaria-Free World [PDF, 18.6MB] and The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) updated Global Technical Strategy: 2016–2030 [PDF, 1.0MB]. The U.S. Government’s goal under the PMI Strategy 2015-2020 [PDF, 8.9MB] is to work with PMI-supported countries and partners to further reduce malaria deaths and substantially decrease malaria morbidity, toward the long-term goal of elimination. USAID also provides support to malaria control efforts in other countries in Africa, including Burkina Faso, Burundi and South Sudan, and one regional program in the Amazon Basin of South America. The latter program focuses primarily on identifying and containing antimalarial drug resistance.

Do you think the U.S. spends too much on foreign aid, even good aid to fight malaria? How much do you think is spent? Put your estimate in comments, please — and by all means, look for sources to see what the actual amount is.

Advertisements

Malaria Twitterstorm, summer of 2015

August 18, 2015

Several good developments in the War on Malaria, worldwide — along with some alarming signs.  Maybe there will be time to blog seriously about each of these things later. Let’s get them known, and keep discussion going for the best way to beat malaria in a post-DDT world.

QPharm Tweeted about DSM 265, an experimental, one-dose treatment developed by the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV); the video is useful for the background those new to the issue can get on the problems of treating malaria, which make great hurdles for campaigns to eradicate malaria.

Here’s the video the Tweet leads to.

MMV said:

DSM265 is a selective inhibitor of the plasmodial enzyme called DHODH. DHODH is a key enzyme in the replication of the parasite. If we can inhibit that enzyme with DSM265, we can stop the life of the parasite.

Voice of America reported on Rollback Malaria’s call for $100 billion to be spent in the next 15 years, to stamp out the disease.

Malaria deaths are, in 2015, at an “all time low.” Deaths hover around 500,000 per year, most in Africa, and most among children under the age of 5. A staggering total, until compared to the post-World War II estimates of more than 5 million deaths per year, or the more than 3 million deaths per year in 1963, the year the World Health Organization (WHO) had to stop its ambitious campaign to eradicate malaria when pesticide DDT, upon which the campaign was based, produced resistance in mosquitoes in areas where the campaign had not yet reached.

Beating malaria is one of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations; this year’s report on MDG acknowledged the great progress already made.

Another non-governmental malaria-fighting organization discussed the news; see the press release from Malaria No More.

Medical News Today Tweeted out a tout for its own coverage of malaria — notable for a good, basic explanation of malaria and how to fight it.  I wish critics of Rachel Carson and WHO were familiar with half of these basic facts.

Medical News Now's Fast Facts on Malaria

Medical News Now’s Fast Facts on Malaria. Notable, that annual deaths now are way below the million mark. Good news!

One malaria vaccine has won approval for final testing. Good news, though anyone who follows vaccines knows it will take a while to test, and anyone who knows malaria fighting knows there are four different parasites, and delivery of any medical care is tough in far too many parts of the world where any form of malaria is endemic. Even small good news is good news.

Are we better informed about malaria now? Do we understand spreading a lot more DDT is not the answer?

 


Bill Gates agrees: We can eliminate malaria in a generation

January 9, 2015

Do we have the will to do it?

More:

Gates Foundation image:  A nurse dispenses a malaria drug to treat an infected child in Tanzania.

Gates Foundation image: A nurse dispenses a malaria drug to treat an infected child in Tanzania.


Want to do a good turn? Nothing But Nets needs you to save a kid from malaria. It’s cheap.

December 30, 2014

I get e-mail from the good people fighting malaria, those who can take your ten-spot and save an African kid from death by malaria.

Dear Ed,

We have 6,000 nets left to reach our 60,000 goal to protect refugee children and their families in Cameroon from malaria!

But I still need your last-minute help to hit our target before the December 31 deadline.

That’s why a generous donor has extended his extraordinary $500,000 matching gift campaign until midnight, December 31.

I can’t think of a more meaningful way to close out the year than by making a life-saving difference for $10.

Contribute now and your tax-deductible donation will have twice the life-saving impact and help Nothing But Nets and our UN partners protect refugees in Cameroon.

Doubled!

That means your year-end donation of $25 will be worth $50, and a generous gift of $50 will be worth $100.

Thank you for caring enough to help us defeat malaria and protect even more lives.

Chris Helfrich

Chris Helfrich
Director, Nothing But Nets

P.S. Please don’t wait another moment. Contribute now to our 60,000 net campaign for Cameroon and your donation will be matched by an extraordinary $500,000 matching gift provided by a generous donor—doubling the impact of your life-saving gift. Thank you for whatever you can afford.

Donate Now | View in browser

1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006
© Nothing But Nets

$10 buys one net, delivered to a family in Africa, usually for a child. When the net is suspended over the bed of the child, mosquitoes cannot bite, and malaria transmission can be stopped. Nets help even if a kid already has malaria, because mosquitoes can’t bite him and get malaria parasites to spread.

Studies over the past 20 years show bednets alone are more effective than Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS), with DDT or any of the other eleven pesticides used.  To increase effectiveness, nets usually come impregnated with an insecticide, so mosquitoes that try to get to the sleeping people inside will die, too.

With the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, millions of nets stopped malaria in its tracks in several different African nations; since the campaign got underway in earnest in 1999, malaria deaths have been cut by 45%, from more than a million each year in 1999 to fewer than 610,000 in 2013, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Malaria deaths declined from the 4 million per year at peak DDT use, circa 1958-63, to about 1 million per year in 1999 — a reduction of 75% from peak DDT use. Malaria deaths today may be the lowest in recorded human history.

Got $10 to save a life? Cut that death toll even further.


2001 press release from NIAID, mosquito genome sequencing project: “DDT was once a powerful tool”

March 24, 2014

Caption from Vanderbilt University: Figure 1. Anopheles freeborni mosquito taking a blood meal. Image reproduced from the Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/mosquitoes/, CDC, public domain.

Caption from Vanderbilt University: Figure 1. Anopheles freeborni mosquito taking a blood meal. Image reproduced from the Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/mosquitoes/, CDC, public domain.

Press release from the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):

Anopheles gambiae Genome Sequencing Project

March 5, 2001

 


Statement of Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.
Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases


Today, a global network of researchers announced that they are collaborating in sequencing the genome of Anopheles gambiae, the mosquito responsible for most cases of malaria in Africa. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) applauds the efforts of the network and their goal of obtaining sequence data by the end of the year.

This information, together with the knowledge gained from the sequences of malaria parasites and the human genome, will provide researchers with a wealth of genomic data necessary for understanding this complex disease. (See the communiqueExternal Web Site Policy.)

The need for a multifaceted commitment to fight malaria and develop new and improved treatments, diagnostics and vaccines has never been greater. According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 300 to 500 million cases of malaria occur annually; in 1999, an estimated 1.1 million deaths were attributed to malaria, most of which occurred in children under the age of 5. Malaria is a public health threat in more than 90 countries, where 40 percent of the world’s population lives. Because of the enormity of this problem, NIAID has made malaria research a central focus of our scientific portfolio and supports a comprehensive research program, which includes basic, field-based and clinical research.

Malaria is caused by a single-celled parasite that is spread to humans by mosquitoes. The control of malaria continues to be a challenge because of the dual problems of increased rates of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes and increased rates of drug resistance in the malaria parasites. Reducing disease transmission by mosquito control has been a mainstay of regional and global malaria control programs. The insecticide DDT was once a powerful tool in global efforts to eradicate malaria. With the development of DDT-resistant mosquitoes, new tools are needed to control this disease. An improved understanding of the basic biology of mosquitoes and their genomes will contribute to our ability to understand and monitor insecticide resistance, develop new insecticides, and ultimately help control the malaria pandemic.

NIAID conducts and supports research—at NIH, throughout the United States, and worldwide—to study the causes of infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. News releases, fact sheets and other NIAID-related materials are available on the NIAID Web site at www.niaid.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health ®

Some points to ponder, 13 years later:

  1. Dr. Fauci notes that DDT was, at one time, a powerful tool to fight malaria — but no longer.  DDT resistant mosquitoes means new tools must be found to replace DDT.
  2. Fauci makes no mention of a shortage of DDT for any reason.  It appears from the press release that DDT’s widespread use is compromised only by its decreasing effectiveness, not by any ban from any governmental entity.
  3. In 1999, 15 years ago now, about 1.1 million people died from malaria annually; estimates cited here are that 300 million to 500 million people actually got a bout of malaria through the year.  This compares with 2012 figures of fewer than 700,000 dead, and fewer than 250 million infections.
  4. Fauci said that, if malaria is to be defeated, it must be attacked on multiple fronts.  Spraying insects alone is not enough, increasing medical care alone is not enough — no single action provides a panacea.

 


Obamacare: Still the better way, still saving money, still a good deal

January 20, 2013

A guy named William Duncan at a blog called Sensible Thoughts posted something I found inherently unsensible a while back.  He listed six reasons why he thought the Affordable Care Act should be repealed. (“A while?” “Yeah, July 2012 is ‘a while.'”)

His sixth point was the old canard about Congress and the President being exempt.  Of course they are not exempt, and so I told him.

Your sixth reason is in error. There is no provision to exempt either the president or Congress from the act. There is no language in the bill such as you describe. Language from page 114 can be found here:

https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/obamacare-making-stuff-up-to-complain-about/

At some length, Mr. Duncan removed that point, but said he still thinks the law should be repealed on the other five points I hadn’t dealt with.

Ed:
Thank you for the correction on point #6. I have gone back and looked at this, and you are absolutely right. Although the Wall Street Journal and folks like Sean Hannity reported that the President and members of Congress are exempt from participation in the Affordable Care Act, in the end that did NOT make it into the language of the legislation. I have deleted point #6 from the post as a result. Thank you for the correction. Now, if you copuld only prove me wrong on the rest of the points listed…. Unfortunately, this remains a bill the the American public did not want, and was purchased by shenanigans that the Administration should be ashamed of.

A quick and dirty response; we may need to put more meat on these response bones in the next couple of months, because the opposition to ObamaCare relies on severely distorted claims about the law and what it actually does.  Much if not most of the good stuff in the law is completely ignored by these critics, and we should point that out, too.

I responded (images added here):

Disproof?

What makes you think Americans didn’t want it? There was a whale of an anti-health care campaign after the act passed, but when it passed, it enjoyed a majority of support. And, when we take each provision of the bill and ask people about that provision, they approve overwhelmingly.

English: Depiction of the House vote on H.R. 3...

Depiction of the House vote on H.R. 3590 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) on March 21, 2010, by congressional district. Democratic yea, dark blue; Democratic nay, light blue; Republican nay, red; No representative seated, white. Image from Wikipedia

For example, not even you are opposed to continuing the Reagan-era program that encourages medical schools to train more general practitioners. No one seriously objects to the provisions that pay physicians to practice in under-served areas, like West Texas, Iowa, and West Virginia. No one objects to the provisions that train more nurses. Only the most rabid racists complain about continuing and expanding the health care clinics on Indian reservations.

The law has dozens of provisions like those, and no one in their right mind objects to them.

Your other five points?

  1. The Supreme Court killed that one for you. They said that, even if you call it a fine, it’s a tax. And at that, it’s a helluva bargain. For those who do not purchase health insurance because they can’t afford to, they must pay $695 additional tax, per year. That’s about what I’d pay monthly on the open market.In any case, there are no fines, according to the Supreme Court.
    English: Depiction of the Senate vote on H.R. ...

    Depiction of the Senate vote on H.R. 3590 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) on December 24, 2009, by state. Color code is difficult to decipher; let it suffice that if there are two Democratic yea votes, the state is colored deep blue; if two Republican nay votes, very red. Image from Wikipedia

    But I can’t imagine why you oppose bargains in health care, especially when they lower the costs of health care to the insured, who will no longer pay the 15% to 25% premium to cover indigent care.

  2. With all the “new taxes,” CBO, the non-partisan group that scores these issues for Congress, projects the bill will decrease federal spending and cut the deficits annually, when fully enacted in 2014 and all out years.Do you oppose deficits or not?All the other taxes are fair, strike only the tippy-top income tiers, and are cheap at that.These taxes make the system more fair. It’s stacked against anyone making less than $150,000 a year, now. That’s most of us. I don’t like it when government helps the rich, at the expense of the poor — that’s contrary to moral standards my church holds, for example, and it tends to damage the economy.So I think more fair taxes, and lower costs, will be quite popular, once we see them.So, new taxes aren’t a good justification to oppose the law.
  3. Speaking of fallacious accounting — CBO, the group you cite, says the bill will reduce the deficits. You assume the Law won’t work, while small portions of it have already slashed inflation in health care costs, from 20% in 2009 to 4% in 2011 and 2012.But, what about repeal? CBO looked at that, too — repeal of the law will increase deficits, not decrease them. It’s only $109 billion increase in deficits, but these number directly refute all claims that repeal would be cheaper. See the analysis gateway here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
  4. This Medicare issue was hashed out, accurately and well I thought, in the campaign. Medicare costs will be reduced by holding costs down — benefits will not be reduced. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan ran into some difficulty with this, because their budget plans assumed the savings from the Affordable Care Act, while eliminating the law that produced the savings.I’m sure there will be some adjustments required. Medicare seems a little ham-fisted when it comes to dealing with local and regional cost differences, but nationwide, over the past 40 years, enormous savings have been realized by reducing some reimbursements for procedures that once were uncommon and expensive, to a less expensive rate, now that they are more common. On the whole, over 40 years, over thousands of procedures, physicians have changed their expectations, and things have worked fine. Oh, there have been grumblings, I know. But the cuts in costs, without cuts in benefits, have stuck.Under the Affordable Care Act, we hope a lot more people will move to company plans from Medicare, or at least to the exchange plans offered in each state.One of the changes already introduced is working [link added here]. Rather than pay providers for each procedure, Medicare now reimburses hospitals for effective hospitalization — that is, when a patient is discharged and then re-enters a hospital for the same complaint, the hospital will lose money. Hospitals are keeping patients a few days longer on many procedures, to insure that one hospitalization is all that is required. Savings are already being made in costs, while improvements have resulted in the health care – better health in the patients!In all, CBO says costs will come down with the Affordable Care Act, as advertised, and costs will rise and deficits will rise if the Act is repealed.
  5. Your abortion argument is too metaphysical, and not enough real-world. Do you want to reduce the number of abortions? Then provide health care, make sure contraception is freely available (not for free, but freely), and stand back. Those two things reduce abortions, as they did during the Clinton administration.Restrictions on abortion, on the other hand, make it more likely a woman will choose to terminate a pregnancy under a number of circumstances: She doesn’t have health care coverage, her coverage does not cover pre-natal care, her coverage won’t cover a new infant, the pregnancy is unplanned due to lack of good information on family planning or lack of access to affordable contraception.You can choose: Restrict abortions and increase the number of abortions, or provide health care, and reduce the number of abortions.It may be a bit counter-intuitive, but you’d better study the issue. The Affordable Care Act’s provisions, Obamacare, have over the years reduced abortions where applied; cutting off that care has increased the number of abortions.My advice would be, don’t kill the babies to make a political point.

I am concerned that you don’t appear much familiar with what the bill actually does. Here are a few reasons to keep the law.

  1. We need more physicians, and the bill provides them.
  2. We need more physicians in underserved areas, and the bill provides them.
  3. We need more nurses, and the bill provides them.
  4. We need more community clinics in underserved urban areas [link added here], where illnesses and injuries frequently go untreated until extreme trauma results, and the victim must get extremely expensive care in an emergency room. This will be one of the biggest cost savers — and the law provides those clinics.
  5. The law will cut the private bureaucracy, and completely dismantle the private death panels set up by insurance companies, saving at least 10% of every health care dollar, applying that money to care instead of bureaucracy. This is already occurring.
  6. Preventive care under the Act is greatly encouraged — if we can boost flu vaccines by another 10%, it will save thousands of lives annually, and millions of dollars in hospitalization costs. Flu shots came with no co-pay this year — did you notice? — so that anyone with any insurance at all could drop by any pharmacy offering flu shots and get one with no out-of-pocket expenses.
    This is huge. Everyone agrees the cheapest health care is for healthy people. The Affordable Care Act changes the way health care is delivered, to emphasize prevention of disease and injury, instead of triage. Prevention usually costs about 10% what the triage would cost.
  7. Removing the lifetime cap on insurance payments, per patient, will save a few thousands of lives, annually. It should kill the phenomenon where many families, hit with a costly disease or accident, had to declare bankruptcy as a result. A significant portion of all bankruptcies have been “not adequately-insured” cases. Those should almost disappear.
  8. Allowing children to stay insured, on a parent’s plan, for those critical years after high school and college and into the second job, with benefits has already benefited millions of Americans, saving millions of dollars and probably a few lives.

I cannot imagine why anyone would want to go back to 20% annual health care cost inflation, the highest per capita health care costs in the world by a factor of two, while leaving one out of every seven people uninsured even though we were paying amounts more than the insurance would have cost.

Obamacare reduces the deficits, and puts our health system on the path to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world, with better care for less cost.

I’ll keep it, thank you.

(See this, too: “More good news about Obamacare: CBO says it will save money”

More:


Lancet special issue on malaria eradication: No call for more DDT

October 30, 2010

Lancet is one of the premiere research journals in the world for all of science, but especially for issues of health and medicine.

Image from Lancet illustrating malaria story

Image from Lancet –
Mother and child under a mosquito bite-preventing bednet.

On October 29, 2010, Lancet published a special report, “Malaria Elimination.”  Much science.  Much history.  No call for more DDT.

A plan for research is laid out.  Plans to eradicate malaria from more than 90 nations are laid out, explained and debated.  Calls for more research are made.  Calls for disciplined action from nations and health care organizations, and donor organizations.

But no call for more DDT.

Go take a look at the issue.  Several of the articles are available for no charge, out from behind the usual Lancet paywall.

Get the real science, real history, real policy.  Environmentalists are not evil villains there.  malaria is the villain in that story, and serious health care researchers and deliverers discuss serious methods to beat the disease.  Consequently, DDT has only a bit part.

Resources:


%d bloggers like this: