Krycia Cowling

Objective: To examine changes in sales of highly processed foods, including infant formulas, in countries joining free trade agreements (FTAs) with the US.Design: Annual country-level data for food and beverage sales come from Euromonitor International. Analyses are conducted in a comparative interrupted time-series (CITS) framework using multivariate random-effects linear models, adjusted for key confounders: gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, percent of the population living in urban areas and female labor force participation rate. Memberships in other FTAs and investment treaties are also explored as possible confounders.Setting: Changes are assessed between 2002 and 2016.Participants: Ten countries joining US FTAs are compared with eleven countries without US FTAs in force; countries are matched on national income level, world region and World Trade Organization membership.Results: After countries join a US FTA, sales are estimated to increase by: 0·89 (95 % CI 0·16, 1·6;P= 0·016) kg per capita per annum for ultra-processed products, 0·81 (95 % CI 0·47, 1·1;P< 0·001) kg per capita per annum for processed culinary ingredients and 0·17 (95 % CI 0·052, 0·29;P= 0·005) kg per capita under age 5 per annum for baby food. No significant change is estimated for minimally processed foods. In statistical models, large unexplained variations in country-specific trends suggest additional unmeasured country-level factors also impact sales trends following entry into US FTAs.Conclusions: These findings strongly support the conclusion that joining US FTAs can contribute to detrimental changes in national dietary consumption that increase population risk of non-communicable diseases.

Building on Tangcharoensathien and colleagues’ description of four tactics used by the tobacco, alcohol, processed food, and breast milk substitute industries to interfere with the development and implementation of health policies, we present a fifth tactic: trade and investment disputes. We describe recent examples of trade and investment claims filed by the tobacco industry to challenge plain packaging legislation, which may serve as a model for future claims by this and other industries. Next, we clarify specific areas of potential conflict between non-communicable disease (NCD) control policies and trade and investment agreement (TIA) commitments, identifying possible vulnerabilities that may be exploited by industry to challenge the legality of these policies. We conclude with ideas to strengthen the position of health policies vis-à-vis commitments in TIAs.

Summary: National Ministries of Health in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) have a key role to play as stewards of the quality agenda in their health systems. This paper uses a previously developed six‐point framework for stewardship (strategy formulation, intersectoral collaboration, governance and accountability, health system design, policy and regulation, and intelligence generation) and identifies specific examples of activities in LMICs in each of these domains, pitfalls to avoid, and possible solutions to these pitfalls. Many LMICs now have quality strategies with clear vision statements. There are good examples of quality agencies and donor collaboration councils to coordinate activities across different sectors. There are multiple options for accountability, including public reporting, community accountability structures, results‐based payment, accreditation, and inspection. To improve health system design, available tools include decision support tools, task‐shifting models, supply chain management, and programs to train quality improvement staff. Policy options include legislation on disclosure of adverse events, and regulations to ensure skills of health care providers. Lastly, health information tools include patient registries, facility surveys, hospital discharge abstracts, standardized population and patient surveys, and dedicated agencies for reporting on quality. Policy‐makers can use this article to identify options for driving the quality agenda and address anticipated implementation barriers.

A key mechanism through which globalization has impacted health is the liberalization of trade and investment, yet relatively few studies to date have used quantitative methods to investigate the impacts of global trade and investment policies on non-communicable diseases and risk factors. Recent reviews of this literature have found heterogeneity in results and a range of quality across studies, which may be in part attributable to a lack of conceptual clarity and methodological inconsistencies. This study is a critical review of methodological approaches used in the quantitative literature on global trade and investment and diet, tobacco, alcohol, and related health outcomes, with the objective of developing recommendations and providing resources to guide future robust, policy relevant research. A review of reviews, expert review, and reference tracing were employed to identify relevant studies, which were evaluated using a novel quality assessment tool designed for this research. Eight review articles and 34 quantitative studies were identified for inclusion. Important ways to improve this literature were identified and discussed: clearly defining exposures of interest and not conflating trade and investment; exploring mechanisms of broader relationships; increasing the use of individual-level data; ensuring consensus and consistency in key confounding variables; utilizing more sector-specific versus economy-wide trade and investment indicators; testing and adequately adjusting for autocorrelation and endogeneity when using longitudinal data; and presenting results from alternative statistical models and sensitivity analyses. To guide the development of future analyses, recommendations for international data sources for selected trade and investment indicators, as well as key gaps in the literature, are presented. More methodologically rigorous and consistent approaches in future quantitative studies on the impacts of global trade and investment policies on non-communicable diseases and risk factors can help to resolve inconsistencies of existing research and generate useful information to guide policy decisions.

Policy Points: Strengthening accountability through better measurement and reporting is vital to ensure progress in improving quality primary health care (PHC) systems and achieving universal health coverage (UHC). The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) provides national decision makers and global stakeholders with opportunities to benchmark and accelerate performance improvement through better performance measurement. Results from the initial PHC performance assessments in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are helping guide PHC reforms and investments and improve the PHCPI's instruments and indicators. Findings from future assessment activities will further amplify cross‐country comparisons and peer learning to improve PHC. New indicators and sources of data are needed to better understand PHC system performance in LMICs. Context: The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI), a collaboration between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The World Bank, and the World Health Organization, in partnership with Ariadne Labs and Results for Development, was launched in 2015 with the aim of catalyzing improvements in primary health care (PHC) systems in 135 low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), in order to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage. Through more comprehensive and actionable measurement of quality PHC, the PHCPI stimulates peer learning among LMICs and informs decision makers to guide PHC investments and reforms. Instruments for performance assessment and improvement are in development; to date, a conceptual framework and 2 sets of performance indicators have been released.Methods: The PHCPI team developed the conceptual framework through literature reviews and consultations with an advisory committee of international experts. We generated 2 sets of performance indicators selected from a literature review of relevant indicators, cross‐referenced against indicators available from international sources, and evaluated through 2 separate modified Delphi processes, consisting of online surveys and in‐person facilitated discussions with experts.Findings: The PHCPI conceptual framework builds on the current understanding of PHC system performance through an expanded emphasis on the role of service delivery. The first set of performance indicators, 36 Vital Signs, facilitates comparisons across countries and over time. The second set, 56 Diagnostic Indicators, elucidates underlying drivers of performance. Key challenges include a lack of available data for several indicators and a lack of validated indicators for important dimensions of quality PHC.Conclusions: The availability of data is critical to assessing PHC performance, particularly patient experience and quality of care. The PHCPI will continue to develop and test additional performance assessment instruments, including composite indices and national performance dashboards. Through country engagement, the PHCPI will further refine its instruments and engage with governments to better design and finance primary health care reforms.

Review of Health Impact Assessments Informing Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition Policies, Programs, and Projects in the United States

Background. We aimed to estimate the total annual funding available for health research in India. We also examined the trends of funding for health research since 2001 by major national and international agencies. Methods. We did a retrospective survey of 1150 health research institutions in India to estimate the quantum of funding over 5 years. We explored the Prowess database for industry spending on health research and development and gathered data from key funding agencies. All amounts were converted to 2015 constant US$. Results. The total health research funding available in India in 2011–12 was US$ 1.42 billion, 0.09% of the gross domestic product (GDP) including only 0.02% from public sources. The average annual increase of funding over the previous 5 years (2007–08 to 2011–12) was 8.8%. 95% of this funding was from Indian sources, including 79% by the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Of the total funding, only 3.2% was available for public health research. From 2006–10 to 2011–15 the funding for health research in India by the three major international agencies cumulatively decreased by 40.8%. The non-industry funding for non-communicable diseases doubled from 2007–08 to 2011–12, but the funding for some of the leading causes of disease burden, including neonatal disorders, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, mental health, musculoskeletal disorders and injuries was substantially lower than their contribution to the disease burden. Conclusion. The total funding available for health research in India is lower than previous estimates, and only a miniscule proportion is available for public health research. The non industry funding for health research in India, which is predominantly from public resources, is extremely small, and had considerable mismatches with the major causes of disease burden. The magnitude of public funding for health research and its appropriate allocation should be addressed at the highest policy level.

Despite the recognized importance of social determinants of health (SDH) in India, no compilation of the status of and inequities in SDH across India has been published. To address this gap, we assessed the levels and trends in major SDH in India from 1990 onwards and explored inequities by state, gender, caste, and urbanicity. Household- and individual-level SDH indicators were extracted from national household surveys conducted between 1990 and 2011 and means were computed across population subgroups and over time. The multidimensional poverty index (MPI), a composite measure of health, education, and standard of living, was calculated for all three rounds of the National Family Health Survey, adjusting the methodology to generate comparable findings from the three datasets. Data from government agencies were analyzed to assess voting patterns, political participation, and air and water pollution. Changes in the MPI demonstrate progress in each domain over time, but high rates persist in important areas: the majority of households in India use indoor biomass fuel and have unimproved sanitation, and over one-third of households with a child under the age of 3 years have undernourished children. There are large, but narrowing, gender gaps in education indicators, but no measurable change in women’s participation in governance or the labor force. Less than 25% of workers have job security and fewer than 15% have any social security benefit. Alarming rates of air pollution are observed, with particulate matter concentrations persistently above the critical level at over 50% of monitoring stations. This assessment indicates that air pollution (indoor and outdoor), child undernutrition, unimproved sanitation, employment conditions, and gender inequality are priority areas for public policy related to SDH in India.