Healthcare

🔥 When Politics Saves Lives: a Good-News Story 🌍🏥💪

Make we yarn about one stori wey go show say sometimes politics fit save plenty lives. Dis tori dey waka wella for di heart of poor and vulnerable pipo for di world.

For one recent blog post, Justin Sandefur, wey be senior fellow at di Center for Global Development, wey dey Washington, D.C., examine di record of di President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Di program, wey President George W. Bush start, epp millions of pipo wey get H.I.V. for sub-Saharan Africa and di Caribbean, and e dey now one of di most important foreign-aid efforts for American history, notable both for its generosity and its effectiveness.🌍🏥💰

Settin up di program bin go against di advice of plenti experts for dat time.

“Di people wey sabi health economics been believe say send AIDS drugs go Africa go waste money,” Sandefur write for di blog post. No be say di drugs no dey work: Antiretroviral therapy don achieve great results for controlling H.I.V.-AIDS and e get di potential to save di lives of infected pipo and prevent new infections. But di drugs dey very expensive, so experts believe say e go make sense to spend di aid money on prevention instead. Data show say money wey dem spend on condom distribution, awareness campaigns, or antibiotics to treat bacterial infections wey fit increase H.I.V. transmission, fit save more lives per dollar pass treatment.😷🌡️💊

For one well-known 2005 Forbes Op-Ed wey Emily Oster write, she talk say “treating H.I.V. no dey pay.” She na di economist from Brown University wey don gain popularity for her advice on parental decision-making. She write say “even though e sound wicked, after I compare di number of years wey antiretrovirals fit save with di years wey oda interventions like education fit save, I come discover say treatment no dey effective way to combat di epidemic.” Many economic experts join her talk and dem assume say policymakers dey work with two constraints: one global health disaster wey dey on large scale and limited budget to address am. Because e dey cost pass to treat existing H.I.V.-AIDS patients pass to prevent new infections, dem come conclude say make dem focus on prevention — even if e mean say dem go allow infected pipo die.💭📉💔

As e turn out, dis argument dey based on one wrong assumption. For reality, di Bush administration bin ready to find money for treatment wey for normal circumstances, dem no go fit spend am on prevention.

Di Bush administration bin don receive plenty pressure and lobbying from interest groups and activists like Bono, di U2 frontman, and Franklin Graham, di son of di Rev. Billy Graham. Dem reasons na primarily based on morals, no be economics, and dem focus on di suffering of pipo wey need treatment. Dem yan say if antiretroviral medications dey, e no go make sense for di kontri wey be di richest for di world to just leave poor pipo make dem die.💔🙏💪

So di question come be say no be just whether make dem spend di money for treatment or prevention, but whether treatment or prevention go be di case wey go get more political support. And for dis matter, treatment win pass.

Bush create PEPFAR, one new and big program wey go provide money to fund AIDS treatment for poor kontris. And for di end, di program no just save lives, but e come even dey cheaper pass wetin di initial cost-benefit analysis suggest. Over di course of di program, di cost of H.I.V. treatment fall rapidly — one change wey fit be because of PEPFAR wey create new demand for di medications, particularly cheaper generic drugs wey enta market few years later.💸🚀💊

Sometimes most efficient no be most effective When I ask Sandefur about di broader lessons, he yan say sometimes di solution wey dey effective and easy to implement fit be di best choice, even if e no dey follow di cost-benefit analysis.

“Close to home for me, as I dey work wella for education, na school meals, wey I believe dey show say dem dey effective,” he yan. “Dem help pikin learn, dem fit make more pikin go school, and dem also improve nutrition outcomes.”

But programs like India’s midday meal scheme, wey dey provide food for more than 100 million school pikin everyday, often no dey score well for cost-benefit analysis sake of oda programs dey see as more efficient way to improve educational outcomes.📚🍽️💡

Salience over science Di PEPFAR case still carry anoda lesson: Sometimes politics dey matter pass economics.

Di constituency wey dey support AIDS treatment include evangelical groups wey get plenti political influence within di Republican Party. When Franklin Graham and Bono join mouth to dey push di agenda, e make am easy to catch di attention of di Bush administration. E also reduce di political costs of spend U.S. government money on big foreign-aid program.

For political science terms, saving di lives of H.I.V.-AIDS patients get better “salience”: activists get strong emotional connection to di cause, and e be priority for dem.

My own experience fit confirm dis: I bin dey student for dat time, and I remember plenty passionate debates among my classmates on how we go fit get treatment for pipo for poor kontris. I sabi say if dem ask dem, all of dem go support prevention measures, but dia energy no dey focused for dat. Dem dey excited and urgent to see pipo wey need treatment get am, sake of e be like emergency.⚡🚑😢

So maybe di bigger lesson na say policy and politics no dey separate. And e mean say political costs and benefits fit win over economic ones — even if e look irrational.🤝🗳️📉


NOW IN ENGLSIH

🔥 When Politics Saves Lives: a Good-News Story 🌍🏥💪

Let’s talk about a story that shows how sometimes politics can save many lives. This story resonates deeply with the poor and vulnerable people of the world.

In a recent blog post, Justin Sandefur, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C., examined the record of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This program, initiated by President George W. Bush, provided assistance to millions of people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. It has become one of the most significant foreign-aid efforts in American history, known for its generosity and effectiveness. 🌍🏥💰

The establishment of this program went against the advice of many experts at the time.

“Health economics experts believed that sending AIDS drugs to Africa would be a waste of money,” wrote Sandefur in his blog post. It wasn’t that the drugs didn’t work; antiretroviral therapy had achieved remarkable results in controlling HIV/AIDS and had the potential to save lives and prevent new infections. However, the medications were very expensive, leading experts to believe that it would be more cost-effective to allocate aid funds towards prevention. Data suggested that money spent on condom distribution, awareness campaigns, or antibiotics to treat bacterial infections that increased the risk of HIV transmission would save more lives per dollar than treatment. 😷🌡️💊

In a well-known 2005 Forbes Op-Ed, economist Emily Oster argued that “treating HIV doesn’t pay.” Oster, who gained popularity for her advice on parental decision-making, wrote, “As cold as it may sound, after comparing the number of years saved by antiretrovirals with years saved by other interventions like education, I found that treatment is not an effective way to combat the epidemic.” Many economic experts agreed with her and assumed that policymakers faced two constraints: a global health disaster on a massive scale and a limited budget to address it. Given that it cost more to treat existing HIV/AIDS patients than to prevent new infections, the conclusion was that focusing on prevention, even if it meant allowing infected individuals to die, would save the most lives. 💭📉💔

As it turned out, this argument was based on a flawed assumption. In reality, the Bush administration was willing to allocate funds for treatment that would not have otherwise been spent on prevention.

The Bush administration faced pressure and lobbying from interest groups and activists like Bono, the U2 frontman, and Franklin Graham, the son of the Rev. Billy Graham. Their reasons were primarily moral, not economic, as they emphasized the plight of people in need of treatment. They argued that it was unjust for the wealthiest country in the world to leave poor people to die when antiretroviral medications were available. 💔🙏💪

So the question became not just whether to spend money on treatment or prevention but which case would garner more political support. And in this regard, treatment emerged as the clear winner.

Bush created PEPFAR, a new and substantial program that provided funding for AIDS treatment in poor countries. In the end, the program not only saved lives but also proved to be more cost-effective than initially anticipated. Over time, the cost of HIV treatment decreased rapidly, possibly due to PEPFAR’s creation of new demand for medications, including cheaper generic drugs that entered the market a few years later. 💸🚀💊

Sometimes the most efficient option is not the most effective one.

When I asked Sandefur about the broader lessons, he explained that sometimes the most effective and easily implementable solution is the best choice, even if it deviates from a cost-benefit analysis.

“From my work in education, a prime example is school meals,” he said. “They have been shown to be effective in improving learning outcomes, increasing school enrollment, and addressing nutrition needs.”

However, programs like India’s midday meal scheme, which provides food for over 100 million school children daily, often do not fare well in cost-benefit analyses because other programs are seen as more efficient for improving educational outcomes. 📚🍽️💡

Salience over science.

The PEPFAR case also carries another important lesson: Sometimes politics outweigh economics.

The constituency supporting AIDS treatment included evangelical groups with significant political influence within the Republican Party. The involvement of figures like Franklin Graham and Bono made it easier to capture the attention of the Bush administration and reduced the political costs of allocating substantial U.S. government funds to a foreign-aid program.

In political science terms, saving the lives of HIV/AIDS patients had greater “salience”: activists had a strong emotional connection to the cause, making it a priority for them.

My own experience confirms this. I was a student during that time, and I vividly remember passionate debates among my classmates about how to ensure treatment for people in poor countries. While I’m certain they would have supported prevention measures if asked, their energy and urgency were focused on providing medications to those in desperate need. It felt like an emergency. ⚡🚑😢

So perhaps the larger lesson here is that policy and politics are intertwined. This means that political costs and benefits often prevail over economic considerations, even if it may seem irrational. 🤝🗳️📉

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *