YakShaving

As mentioned earlier, last week Kansas City hosted a Global Health Symposium. I was lucky enough to view a host of presentations by speakers from academia, philanthropic organizations, and businesses.

Notable:
1) Dr. Paul Farmer: The founder and driving force behind Partners in Health, an organization created to provide healthcare to the poor. Paul talked about the amazing work that PiH is doing in several countries including Rwanda and Haiti. I was impressed with PiH because their focus was not only on systematically helping AIDS/HIV patients, but to try and foster better health through access to clean water, food, decent housing and education. These components seem so inextricably tied it would seem, and any charity that seeks funding for only targeting one global social ill would learn a lot from exploring the PiH model further. Paul also makes the argument that the cost of intervening and prventing HIV/AIDS is far more than the potential cost of a widescale epidemic.

2) Saskia Sassen
Her notion of the rapid emergence of “global cities” over the traditional regional or national boundaries is interesting. My knowledge of international affairs and foreign policy has dwindled in the past 4 years, but not enough to understand that her visions of the future are not unique– There are many economists and futurists who believe that cities will become more important globally. I think that this is caused by two reasons, 1) the rapid urbanization we have been experiencing since the industrial revolution and 2) “resources” are more or less driven be human capital and knowledge workers, who of course, live in cities, for the most part.
I enjoyed Saskia’s discussion on the importance of “grandparents”. She mentioned that having abuelas or grandmothers in the household has been proven to improve health in 3rd world nations, and went on to describe the reasons for this. I guess I never thought about it before, but it makes a lot of sense.

3) Inge Kaul, from the UNDP, mentioned economic returns from socially responsible funds are increasing, but still low. A call to arms in the future will be to seek ways in which the average consumer will seek out SRI, and expect a modest return on their investment while helping to eradicate poverty and associated problems. Inge went into the problems of the “commons” and advocated that personal wellbeing in the 1st world relies largely on private goods, not those in the public domain. This situation is flipped in the 3rd world, and as a result, we in the US don’t understand how funding in these areas would help that much. She advocates that the problems of poverty need to be turned into arguments of self-interest (open borders allow the spread of terrible diseases that could have an impact on 1st world countries). Inge makes the case that inaction is more costly than action, which is probably the strongest argument I’ve heard to appease the economists. Many speakers at the global health symposium reiterated this fact. Finally, Inge made the notable point that aligning incentives to the public/private sector was far more effective than top down mandates (The UN requiring countries to contribute a certain % of GDP to AIDS/HIV efforts, for example).

3) Dr. Tyler Cymet (Lifebridge Primary care physician), provided the most incisive commentary on the “Bono-ization” of health care. He was touted by the symposium’s organizer as the “antidote” to Paul Farmer. Though controversial, I felt his lecture was one of the most realistic views on global health missions. He advocated taking into account cultural differences between the United States and the countries that we typically run missions in. I liked his top 3 reasons for anti-aging medicine: “#1 Don’t get sick, #2 Don’t get old, #3 Don’t die”. He went on to say that we need to accept death in the 3rd world at a younger age than we would typically accept in the US. There are not enough indigenous resources to keep populations surviving, let alone thriving. It is far better, then to deal with the problems that are easily solvable (low hanging fruit), and save the rest to fate. He advocates doing the best for most, not what is best for each individual. If AIDS/HIV antiretrovirals prevent the spread of an incurable disease, then it is worth it. But if they simply prolong the inevitable and agonizing death of these individuals, is it really worth it? I tend to agree. Tyler raised a great point, that the biggest global health issue is TOBACCO (a completely manmade device). Go figure. Smoking cessation in the 3rd world would be a lot more productive than curing the symptoms of AIDS.. Finally, Dr. Cymet concludes that goals must be realistic, both sides must benefit (the wealthy countries sending mission workers as well as the 3rd world countries receiving them), and the focus on global health should be taken holistically.

4) Dr. Niraj Mistry (Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS)
This was certainly my favorite presentation during the “business track” of the second day of the symposium. I was extremely pleased to learn about the developments that the GBC on HIV/AIDS is able to accomplish with the help of MNCs. He spoke about the “de-medicalization” of AIDS.. So in other words, HIV/AIDS cannot be cured with “drugs and doctors alone”. The example he gave was in the Niger delta- the main issue was a lacking power generator (for the refrigeration of vaccines), not the lack of medication available. So companies donated money (or power generators, if that is their commercial output), and this problem was resolved.
The GBC on HIV/AIDS created this continuum for their interactions with businesses:
Workplace Policy-> Core Competency -> Corporate Giving -> CEO Advocacy
I perceived this to be an extremely effective model that is working to have businesses engage at the level they are capable of. I found that CEO advocacy held far more importance than I ever thought in the past. The rationale is that when business leaders speak to government leaders about global issues, there is a higher tendency to listen than when NGO/Activists do.

Some additional intersting examples that were interesting:

* MAC, the makeup manufacturer, has started a line called VIVA GLAM. ALL (yes, that says ALL) profits go to AIDS research. **AND**, they have measured that this has a tremendous impact on their profits in other lines, because people are more likely to buy from a socially responsible company.
* The NBA’s biggest asset, its players, have started “Basketball without Borders” - and seek to educate global citizens about HIV/AIDS.
* TATA - Basera Pre marriage counseling

Niraj mentioned that companies who sell to markets are in-tune with their consumers, and are able to understand cultural specific differences better. He mentioned how buy-in rhetoric can work: e.g. Female condoms were introduced in Tanzania and Uganda to decrease the spread of STDs like HIV/AIDS. In one of the countries, the female condoms were touted by doctors to prevent a horrible disease. No one used them and AIDS continues to spread rampantly. In the other, the condoms were pitched as an erotic sexual implement, and all of a sudden, the spread of disease was minimized. Global companies are very likely to understand knowledge/attitude/perception, a community of international doctors might not.

Finally, and possibly the most economically slanted argument Niraj mentioned was that the Copenhagen Consensus determined that the HIGHEST return on investment for the world’s toughest problems was for curing HIV/AIDS. Wow. Why don’t we ever hear anything like this in the popular media?

All in all, it was a fantastic symposium. I learned a tremendous amount from the fantastic speakers. I am both proud and happy to be a part of it.