[Ed. note: we are pleased to welcome Nicole Cornett to HRW. She is a fourth year evening student at Seton Hall Law School and is currently a Senior Program Manager for Novartis Pharmaceuticals in Oncology. After completing an undergraduate degree in Biology and Chemistry at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Nicole joined Novartis as an Analytical Chemist and began the Masters of Business Administration program at Seton Hall University. Upon completion of her MBA in Management she transitioned into Program Management in Oncology and shortly after enrolled in Seton Hall Law School's evening program, pursuing a J.D. with a concentration in Health Law. Nicole continues to support a broad spectrum of drug development activities, and has received various corporate awards including a President's Award in 2010. She is particularly interested in drug regulatory policy and global healthcare systems.]
In 2001, amidst an atmosphere of fear and ignorance, a UN General Assembly Special Session on AIDS raised HIV/AIDS to the level of seriousness it so rightly deserved. There are some who credit the meeting with the formation of the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
Ten years later (September 19-20, 2011) a high-level meeting of the General Assembly convened in New York on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Why now? Because the environment of fear and ignorance has been replaced with recognition of the potential risk that these diseases pose for economic burden. Diseases such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and cancer pose a major risk to productivity, healthcare costs, poverty, and economic growth. In September of 2011 the World Economic Forum released a report entitled The Global Economic Burden of Non-communicable Diseases , in which they discuss an assortment of variables that will lead to an increased rate of NCDs and therefore an increased burden on the global economy, as well as local economies. The findings of their research paint a dire picture of rising prevalence, increasing costs, an aging population, and the cumulative output loss as a percentage of Global GDP.
To assess the affect of NCDs on economic burden the authors of the report describe three methods used to quantify: 1) the cost-of-illness approach, 2) the value of lost output: the economic growth approach, and 3) the value of statistic life approach. The report elaborates on each method, but essentially each provides an assessment of economic burden from a different perspective, and each has strengths and weaknesses that should be considered when viewing the results. Here are some of the conclusions the report sites (these bullets should encourage you to read the report):
- Value of Lost Output approach: lost output from five conditions (cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes and mental health) over the period 2011-2030 is estimated at nearly US$ 47 trillion.
- Value of statistical life approach: the economic burden of life lost due to all NCDs ranges from US$ 22.8 trillion in 2010 to US$ 43.3 trillion.
- Cost-of-illness approach: estimates of direct and indirect costs of ill health for five distinct disease categories are:
Thankfully, the report goes the extra mile and discusses possible interventions (most identified by WHO) identified as “best buys” because they are cost-effective, feasible and appropriate for use in low-middle income countries. Examples of these interventions include tax increases to tobacco and alcohol products, counseling on cardiovascular therapies, education on diet and physical activity, and preventative medicine/screening.
In the US, we should pay particular attention to what can and should be done to tackle the issue of NCDs, and bear in mind the hazards of not doing so. After the recent debt-ceiling-debacle we can all expect much greater scrutiny into government spending. This will include expenditures on educational programs for diet and exercise, smoking cessation, diabetes, etc. The cost/benefit analysis must determine these programs to be of unquestionable importance.
Just the other day I heard a political analyst on a mainstream news program state that it’s unfortunate for Barack Obama that the Supreme Court will likely hand down a decision on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law in the midst of heavy presidential campaigning because it serves as a reminder that instead of focusing on the economy, Obama was immersed in healthcare reform. The statement highlights the issue of mindset. The availability and affordability of healthcare cannot be considered independent of economic health. Instead, it should be considered a direct factor in addressing the root cause of our struggling economy. To put it another way, Obama’s focus on healthcare reform was a direct effort at rehabilitating the US economy by targeting a source of financial strain on the government and the public, as well as reducing the affect of disease on the productivity of society.
It will be increasingly important for global leaders to recognize the role healthcare plays in economic health and growth. It’s encouraging to see the UN acknowledge the risk associated with NCDs because it highlights the need for effective systematic health management, particularly of diseases with high prevalence that require continuous maintenance. Failure to manage such a large portion of the pie that constitutes healthcare costs will have cascading effects on global and local economies.
In 2001, amidst an atmosphere of fear and ignorance, a UN General Assembly Special Session on AIDS raised HIV/AIDS to the level of seriousness it so rightly deserved. There are some who credit the meeting with the formation of the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
Ten years later (September 19-20, 2011) a high-level meeting of the General Assembly convened in New York on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Why now? Because the environment of fear and ignorance has been replaced with recognition of the potential risk that these diseases pose for economic burden. Diseases such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and cancer pose a major risk to productivity, healthcare costs, poverty, and economic growth. In September of 2011 the World Economic Forum released a report entitled The Global Economic Burden of Non-communicable Diseases , in which they discuss an assortment of variables that will lead to an increased rate of NCDs and therefore an increased burden on the global economy, as well as local economies. The findings of their research paint a dire picture of rising prevalence, increasing costs, an aging population, and the cumulative output loss as a percentage of Global GDP.
To assess the affect of NCDs on economic burden the authors of the report describe three methods used to quantify: 1) the cost-of-illness approach, 2) the value of lost output: the economic growth approach, and 3) the value of statistic life approach. The report elaborates on each method, but essentially each provides an assessment of economic burden from a different perspective, and each has strengths and weaknesses that should be considered when viewing the results. Here are some of the conclusions the report sites (these bullets should encourage you to read the report):
Thankfully, the report goes the extra mile and discusses possible interventions (most identified by WHO) identified as “best buys” because they are cost-effective, feasible and appropriate for use in low-middle income countries. Examples of these interventions include tax increases to tobacco and alcohol products, counseling on cardiovascular therapies, education on diet and physical activity, and preventative medicine/screening.
In the US, we should pay particular attention to what can and should be done to tackle the issue of NCDs, and bear in mind the hazards of not doing so. After the recent debt-ceiling-debacle we can all expect much greater scrutiny into government spending. This will include expenditures on educational programs for diet and exercise, smoking cessation, diabetes, etc. The cost/benefit analysis must determine these programs to be of unquestionable importance.
Just the other day I heard a political analyst on a mainstream news program state that it’s unfortunate for Barack Obama that the Supreme Court will likely hand down a decision on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law in the midst of heavy presidential campaigning because it serves as a reminder that instead of focusing on the economy, Obama was immersed in healthcare reform. The statement highlights the issue of mindset. The availability and affordability of healthcare cannot be considered independent of economic health. Instead, it should be considered a direct factor in addressing the root cause of our struggling economy. To put it another way, Obama’s focus on healthcare reform was a direct effort at rehabilitating the US economy by targeting a source of financial strain on the government and the public, as well as reducing the affect of disease on the productivity of society.
It will be increasingly important for global leaders to recognize the role healthcare plays in economic health and growth. It’s encouraging to see the UN acknowledge the risk associated with NCDs because it highlights the need for effective systematic health management, particularly of diseases with high prevalence that require continuous maintenance. Failure to manage such a large portion of the pie that constitutes healthcare costs will have cascading effects on global and local economies.