Latest news with #IHME
Hans India
2 days ago
- Health
- Hans India
Antibiotic resistance to drive treatment cost from $66 bn to $159 bn yearly by 2050: Study
New Delhi: The increasing resistance to antibiotics may not only lead to an increase in deaths but may also surge treatment costs from the current $66 billion per year to $159 billion per year by 2050, according to a study. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria or superbugs, which emerge due to the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, can increase the number of hospital admissions and lead to longer and more intensive hospital stays. Resistant infections are roughly twice as expensive to treat as those for which antibiotics are effective, posing a significant threat to global health and economic stability. However, its impact would be more pronounced in low- and middle-income countries, noted the study. The study by the think tank Center for Global Development integrates human health burden projections with economic models to provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of AMR on global economies and health systems. 'We estimate that the impact of antimicrobial resistance falls most heavily on low- and lower-middle-income countries. Antimicrobial resistance increases the cost of health care by $66 billion, and this will rise to $159 billion in our business-as-usual scenario where resistance rates follow historical trends,' said the researchers, led by Anthony McDonnell, a policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. The study adopted a multifaceted approach to estimate the economic burden of AMR. Projections of the health burden were taken from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which estimates deaths from AMR to soar by 60 per cent by 2050. The numbers of those becoming seriously ill from drug-resistant bacteria are also expected to jump. Health burden estimates from the IHME suggest that if resistance follows trends since 1990, AMR will lead to 38.5 million deaths between 2025 and 2050. 'If resistance rates follow historical trends since 1990, the direct health care costs of AMR are projected to rise to $159 billion per year by 2050 (1.2 per cent of global health expenditure). This increase is attributed to higher treatment intensities and economic growth in regions most affected by AMR,' the researchers said. The study called for improving innovation and access to high-quality treatment. It showed that if nobody died from AMR, "the global population will be 22.2 million larger by 2050'.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Even a single slice of sausage a day can increase the risk of chronic diseases.
Bad news for sausage fans: According to a new study, even small amounts of processed meat can increase the risk of chronic diseases. A ham sandwich here, a snack salami there–what sounds harmless can lead to diabetes, coronary heart disease, or colon cancer. FITBOOK nutrition expert presents the study results to you. Processed meat products have long been suspected of promoting chronic diseases. However, the strength of the connection–and whether even small amounts are harmful–remained unclear until now. A research team led by Demewoz Haile from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington aimed to find out exactly that. The goal was to systematically quantify the impact of common food groups on the development of chronic diseases. Given that chronic diseases like diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), and colon cancer cause a significant disease burden worldwide, precise insights into diet-related risk factors are of great importance for public health.1 How the Researchers Proceeded The study was conducted as a so-called 'Burden of Proof' analysis–an advanced method based on systematic reviews (meta-analyses) and statistical modeling. The unique aspect: With this special method, the researchers were able to calculate dose-response relationships–that is, how much the risk increases with different consumption levels. They deliberately calculated conservatively to avoid overestimating effects. They used only existing data from large observational studies. What is the 'Burden of Proof' Method?The 'Burden of Proof' studies are a series of particularly elaborate meta-analyses developed by the IHME. They compile data from numerous observational studies and assess how strong and reliable the connection is between a risk factor (e.g., processed meat) and a disease (e.g., type 2 diabetes). The result is presented with a star system–from weak (one star) to strong evidence (five stars). The aim is to reduce scientific uncertainties and enable reliable statements for dietary recommendations. For the present study, data from a variety of prospective cohort studies and case-control studies were included, such as: 15 studies with over 1.1 million participants on the link between processed meat and type 2 diabetes 11 studies with over 1.17 million participants on processed meat and CHD 18 studies with over 2.67 million participants on processed meat and colon cancer Also interesting: The less meat in the diet, the lower … Even One Sausage a Day Is Too Much The analysis showed that even the smallest daily amounts of processed meat are associated with a measurable increase in disease risk–in all areas studied. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increased by an average of 11 percent with a daily intake of 0.6 to 57 grams. Assuming a person eats 50 grams per day (equivalent to two to three slices of cold cuts or a Vienna sausage), the risk increased by a whopping 30 percent. The results for colon cancer were similarly unfavorable. Here, a daily intake of 0.78 to 55 grams resulted in an average risk increase of seven percent. Those who eat 50 grams of processed meat daily have a 26 percent higher risk of colon cancer. For CHD, a daily 50-gram portion led to a 15 percent increase in risk. The study authors noted: The risk increased continuously with the amount–but particularly strongly at low, everyday amounts. Sugary Drinks and Trans Fats Also Showed a Negative Effect The authors also considered two other common food groups that showed a negative effect on the development of chronic diseases: sugary drinks and trans fats. The analysis included 19 studies on sugar-sweetened beverages and diabetes (563,444 participants), eight studies on CHD (961,176 participants), and 6 studies with 226,509 people on trans fats and CHD. The result: Consuming sugar-sweetened beverages (e.g., soft drinks) increased the risk of diabetes by 20 percent and CHD by seven percent when 250 grams were consumed daily. If trans fats (e.g., in croissants, fries, ready meals) made up one percent of daily energy intake, the risk of chronic diseases increased by 11 percent. Significance of the Results Even the smallest amounts of sausage, soft drinks, and trans fats can increase the risk of three of the most common chronic diseases worldwide. Particularly critical: The steepest increase in risk occurred at low daily intake levels–areas that many people regularly consume. For everyday life, this means: Even those who 'moderately' indulge in processed meat or soft drinks may potentially expose themselves to an increased risk of disease. This result is also reflected in the 2024 updated recommendations of the German Nutrition Society. Instead of 600 grams, only 300 grams of meat and sausage can be consumed per week–if one wants to eat these foods at all. The DGE emphasizes: 'Even with a consumption of no or less than 300 grams of meat per week, the nutritional goals can be achieved.'2 For research, the study underscores the need to precisely capture dose-response relationships–not least to be able to provide realistic and effective dietary recommendations. Context and Possible Limitations The study uses an advanced methodology with systematic literature search and precise dose-response modeling. The 'Burden of Proof' method is among the most demanding approaches in nutritional epidemiology today. Also noteworthy is the transparency of the work: The data, methods, and codes are publicly accessible, and conflicts of interest have been disclosed and excluded. The work was peer-reviewed and published in 'Nature Medicine,' a renowned journal. However, there are limitations: The results are based on observational studies–studies that cannot prove cause-and-effect relationships but only show associations. These were each internally rated with only two stars, 'indicating weak associations or conflicting evidence and underscoring both the need for further research and–given the high burden of these chronic diseases–the advisability of continuing to limit the consumption of these foods,' the study authors conclude. Less Is More Small amounts of processed meat seem harmless, but they are not. The current study shows that small amounts of sausage and the like are enough to significantly increase the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, CHD, and colon cancer. Particularly insidious: The greatest risk increase occurs with small, everyday portions. So, if you want to do something good for your health in the long term, you might want to opt for the plant-based alternative at your next snack. Less is clearly more in this case–and sometimes even life-extending. The post Even a single slice of sausage a day can increase the risk of chronic diseases. appeared first on FITBOOK.
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Health
- Newsweek
City of Hope CEO on the Challenge "Greater Than Any One Entity Can Tackle"
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. This is a preview of Access Health—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Every day, I see a new example of inefficiency in the American health care system. Lagging medical research. Siloed data with unclear applications. A tedious revenue cycle. Too few providers despite climbing demand. If you're reading this newsletter, I'm sure you can relate—you likely have your own library of personal and professional moments that made you ask, "Surely this isn't the best we can do?" We usually groan about the daily slowdowns, but it can be tough to translate anecdotes into action. That's why this study, published July 15 in The Lancet Global Health, was so intriguing to me. It actually puts a number on our inefficient health care system and gives us something to measure ourselves against. Researchers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), based at the University of Washington in Seattle, measured health spending inefficiency for 201 countries from 1995 to 2022. They compared each country's health adjusted-life expectancy to its level of health care spending, and estimated the cost of one additional year of healthy life to determine inefficiency scores. "When we talk about inefficiency in this work, what we're describing is a gap between the best possible outcome and then the actual observed outcome," Dr. Amy Lastuka, lead research scientist at the IHME, told me. Previous research has established that the U.S. has the highest per capita health care spending of its peers, but the IHME determined that we have an inefficiency gap of 6.2 healthy years in our life expectancies. In other words, Americans could—and should—be getting 6.2 more years of bang for our bucks. Even after accounting for high levels of behavioral and metabolic risks in our population, we fell short of the best possible health outcomes for the amount that we spend. China, on the other hand, appears to have cracked the spending code. They achieved zero inefficiency in 2022. The good news is that there is a better way; the bad news is that our way is not meeting that gold standard, while our international competitors are. I asked Lastuka why we're lagging—and although the IHME didn't investigate specific drivers of U.S. health outcomes, she did share some global patterns they observed. Higher vaccination rates and higher use of prenatal care were associated with more efficient systems, as were higher investments in preventative care. A higher percentage of government health care spending, as opposed to private insurance or out-of-pocket payments, was also linked to more favorable outcomes. And governance structures are "really important" to health systems' success, Lastuka said. Government corruption was associated with less efficient health care spending. "It does seem to be the case that there are countries that are getting more healthy life years for less money," Lastuka said. "We certainly don't have all the answers in this paper, but I would hope that policy makers and [health care] stakeholders look at who is really performing the best according to this analysis, and try to dig deeper into what they're doing in those locations so we can learn from them." What's the biggest bog to the U.S. health care system right now? Let me know your thoughts at Essential Reading City of Hope recently launched its own generative AI model: HopeLLM. The tool can assist with patient onboarding, summarizing vast medical records in seconds. It also works to match patients with clinical trials and pull relevant data for research. HopeLLM has been a hit with providers and has also attracted interest from the pharmaceutical industry, according to Simon Nazarian, City of Hope's chief digital and technology officer. Read more deployment insights from our exclusive interview here. And read on to the Pulse Check section for a slice of my recent conversation with CEO Robert Stone. HHS proceeded with thousands of layoffs after receiving a green light from the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported on Tuesday. Employees who dealt with communications, public records, medical research contracts and travel coordination for overseas drug inspection were included in the terminations. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also laid off his chief of staff and deputy chief of staff for policy this week. Kennedy "lost confidence" in these individuals after only a few months on the job, a source told CNN, which broke the news. But it remains unclear what particular event (if any) sparked the firings. Large employers are preparing to scale back health care benefits next year amid rising costs from weight loss and specialty drugs, per a Wednesday report from the consulting firm Mercer, shared with Newsweek. Of the surveyed companies, 51 percent shared plans to increase cost-sharing in 2026—a 45 percent increase from the same survey in 2025. More than three-quarters of employers told Mercer that the rising cost of GLP-1 weight loss drugs was a top issue. This has the potential to make a bad situation worse for employees. KFF released new poll results this week, revealing that 1 in 5 American adults have not filled a prescription because of cost. Plus, patients with employer-sponsored insurance continue to rate their insurance more negatively than those with Medicare or Medicaid, reporting a negative view of their monthly premiums, out-of-pocket costs and prescription co-pays. The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania is set to pay $207.6 million in a record-breaking medical malpractice verdict for the state. This week, an appellate court upheld a lower court's finding that the hospital delayed a cesarean section—causing the child to be born with severe brain injuries including cerebral palsy. Courts ruled that the 2018 procedure deviated from standards of care. The mother had an infection in her uterus, and the C-section was delayed by 45 minutes. The hospital tried to appeal the case, arguing that it relied on an unlawful "team liability theory," asking jurors to find the collective care team responsible without naming a specific individual. Their appeal was ultimately rejected, but the hospital intends to continue its challenge of the "legally flawed verdict," according to recent statements. Pulse Check Robert Stone is the CEO of City of Hope. Robert Stone is the CEO of City of Hope. City of Hope For this week's Pulse Check, I connected with Robert Stone, CEO of City of Hope, one of the nation's largest cancer research and treatment organizations. Its hospitals are pillars in some of the largest American cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix and Atlanta. But the health system aims to reach beyond the hubs, bringing top-notch cancer care to all corners of the country. Whether through novel AI developments, groundbreaking genomic research or brick-and-mortar expansion, access is a major priority, Stone told me. It's only fitting that I share his thoughts in this aptly named newsletter—find a portion of our interview below. Improving access to cancer care is a major focus for your organization. How, specifically, do you envision large cancer centers like City of Hope bridging those gaps? There is a gap between the innovation taking place at academic cancer centers and the people who can actually access these breakthroughs. That's why we're bringing optimal cancer care closer to where people live and work. We've grown tremendously over the last 10 years, and that includes becoming this national system. We opened and acquired hospitals across the country so that now 86 million people live within a short driving distance of one of our hospitals. There is an aspect of having facilities in the communities where people live, putting your own experts and treatments in those communities. Beyond our long-time campus in Los Angeles, we have just opened a new cancer center and will open a new hospital at the end of the year in Irvine, California, [and we have facilities] just outside of Phoenix, Chicago and Atlanta. Part of the answer though is, really, if you're going to put patients first, if they can stay in their communities to be treated, that's the best answer for them. Their support system is there. Their lives are there. They're most comfortable. And so we've taken a lot of effort to partner with health providers in different communities. We have a subsidiary that we formed five or six years ago called Access Hope, and the purpose of Access Hope was to partner with the treating physician of cancer patients and get our expertise to them, rather than find a way to drive that those patients to one of our facilities. We invited a number of other leading cancer centers to join us in that effort, because if you're putting patients first, it's not about any one center. So Dana Farber, Northwestern, Emory, Fred Hutchinson, UT Southwestern, Johns Hopkins are all partners in servicing and making sure patients across the country get the right diagnosis and the right treatment plan, even without us providing that care. That's part of the solution. Continuing to use technology in new ways to partner with others is also part of the solution. I think the bottom line is cancer represents hundreds of diseases and there's no one-size-fits-all approach. The common denominator is putting patients at the center and figuring out how you're going to get the latest discoveries to them as fast as possible. What's one innovation in the oncology space that you believe will have a significant impact on public health beyond cancer care? A lot of the genomic work that we've seen and that we've applied to cancer has applicability to other rare diseases and rare childhood diseases. Thanks to genetics, we now know that cancer is not one disease but hundreds—unique variants that can be targeted for treatment. Unlocking the human genome has provided an unimaginable amount of information on the human body. If you typed out a sequence in 12-point font at 60 words per minute and for eight hours a day, it would take 50 years to type just one human genome. And that stack of papers would be as tall as the Statue of Liberty. Today, the relative low cost and quick turnaround time has exponentially expanded the use of genomic data to fuel our incredible progress. Things like accurate genomic testing, where we can ensure the correct diagnosis, or precision medicine, with tailored treatment plans designed around specific variants of cancer to greatly improve outcomes and the patient experience. With precision medicine, I think you're going to see patient populations get smaller and smaller over time, because we'll understand that targeted therapies--whether you're talking about cancer, or other therapies or other diseases--you'll have smaller patient populations to apply it to. And I think that that's really important. I'll give you an example in oncology. If we were in a room with 200 people and we all had lung cancer, maybe three of us would have the same type of lung cancer. And so the innovation that allows you to focus on smaller and smaller patient population sets, that approach is going to happen throughout medicine in general. What about the health system status quo needs to change in order for genomics research and innovation to reach its full potential? I think health systems need to embrace change, right? Technology and innovation are going to lead to a changing environment. I tell people that the days of 10-plus-year strategic plans, to me, are over. We have to accomplish 10 years' worth of work in five years because the environment changes so, so quickly. I think the key is focusing on what's good for the patient. If you approach it through that lens, you realize speed is of the essence and that cancer is a challenge greater than any one entity can tackle. It represents a team sport, which makes partnerships and collaborations so important. Historically, thinking has been siloed. Your collaboration tends not to happen at the same level as it should, and you've got to think of cancer care as a team sport. You've got to be able to operate with speed, mobility, agility. You have to be flat and fast. You've got to see change as an opportunity and then create value through differentiation. Those are things that I think health care is waking up to. C-Suite Shuffles Dr. Phillip Chang is the new system SVP and chief medical and quality officer for CommonSpirit Health, tasked with overseeing clinician, quality and safety leaders across more than 2,200 care sites in 24 states. is the new system for tasked with overseeing clinician, quality and safety leaders across more than 2,200 care sites in 24 states. UnitedHealth Group named Mike Cotton its CEO for Medicaid , a role that has been vacant since May. The Medicaid division was previously led by Bobby Hunter, who will now oversee both the Medicare and Medicaid divisions in a streamlined role. named its , a role that has been vacant since May. in a streamlined role. Aledade, the nation's largest network of independent primary care providers, tapped Dr. Lalith Vadlamannati to serve as its chief technology officer. He most recently held the same title at the digital joint and muscle clinic Hinge Health, and previously worked as VP of engineering at Amazon, leading international expansion for its eCommerce business. Executive Edge Dr. Stacey Rosen is the volunteer president of the American Heart Association and executive director of Northwell Health's Katz Institute for Women's Health. Dr. Stacey Rosen is the volunteer president of the American Heart Association and executive director of Northwell Health's Katz Institute for Women's Health. Northwell Health Last week, I sat down with Dr. Stacey Rosen, who was recently named volunteer president of the American Heart Association. She's also the executive director of Northwell Health's Katz Institute for Women's Health in New York—and will be speaking at Newsweek's upcoming Women's Global Impact Summit. We discussed her upbringing and the "mythical" qualities of the heart that compelled her to study it. And, in preparation for the Summit on August 5, we discussed the long history of neglect for women's health in medical research and cardiology: a wrong that Rosen has dedicated her career to righting. I asked her to give her best advice for women health care leaders, but I think parts of her answer will resonate regardless of sex: "Decide what's important to you. Identify your vision, priorities, integrity, mission, and make that always your North Star. Stick to your true values, work hard and keep at it. Stick to your true values, work hard and keep at it. "There have been a lot of times in my career that [I've gotten] frustrated. Things don't go as you want. Your grant doesn't get supported, or 'women's health' becomes a term you're not supposed to use. If it's important to use, you've gotta stick with it. "My advice to women is to decide what's important to you when it comes to how you are perceived at the workplace. Don't make assumptions about things, but also, don't sit quietly in the corner of the room. There are times that it's hard, and times that you have to decide when you ignore a comment and when you don't ignore a comment...I tell women who are often frustrated as the only, or one of few [women in the room] to decide what's important and to keep working at it." Register here to see Rosen speak live at Newsweek's Women's Global Impact Summit in New York City on August 5. This is a preview of Access Health—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.
Euronews
6 days ago
- Health
- Euronews
Why some countries' healthcare spending is more wasteful than others
Wealthy countries spend trillions of euros on health care every year, but not all of them are getting their money's worth, a new analysis has found. Higher levels of health spending are linked to better outcomes, but after a certain point, more money may not be efficient or practical. The more a country spends on medical care, the more it must pay to continue boosting citizens' health, according to the study published in The Lancet Global Health journal. In countries that spend $100 (€85) per capita on health care, for example, spending another $92 (€79) per person earns them an additional year of healthy life. But in countries that spend $5,000 (€4,272) per capita, another healthy year would cost $11,213 (€9,580). 'Countries around the world have made significant progress in converting dollars into health,' wrote the researchers from the US-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 'However, more reductions in inefficiency need to be made in an era of tightening health-care budgets [and] to maximise the returns on their health care spending'. The researchers determined health spending inefficiency by comparing a country's total health spending – including the amount they spend and how they spend it – to the number of years people there can expect to live in good health. The study included 201 countries and territories, and covered a 28-year period from 1995 to 2022. Drivers of efficient and wasteful spending Globally, health spending became more efficient between 1995 and 2019, but this progress was disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it began to recover in 2022, there are still major 'inefficiency gaps' between countries, the analysis found. The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other wealthy country. But its system is not particularly efficient, which costs Americans 6.2 years of healthy life. China was the most efficient country with zero waste, meaning it optimised its spending to deliver the best possible health outcomes for its citizens, according to the analysis. Most European countries were considered fairly efficient. Exceptions included Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and to a lesser extent, the Netherlands, Belgium, Belarus, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Beyond their actual budgets, the most efficient countries tended to have better governance, greater uptake of primary care, infrastructure that makes it possible for people to access medical services, and more public spending on health care compared with the private sector. Notably, the study does not take into account health care quality, but rather tracks how well a country scores among those with similar levels of spending. The study authors said policymakers could use the findings to maximise their investments in health, which could be particularly important given many countries are facing pressure on their budgets. 'Expanding government-provided health-care coverage would decrease the inefficiency of the health care system,' the researchers argued. 'Countries should also focus on strengthening democracy, building infrastructure, and increasing the use of, and access to, preventive care,' they added.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Countries slash global health aid for poorer countries to lowest level in 15 years, study finds
Global powers have been slashing their health spending in lower-income countries this year, causing health funding to be at its lowest level in 15 years, a new analysis has found. International health spending was already falling after the COVID-19 pandemic, but it plummeted in 2025, according to the report from the US-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Health aid to lower-income countries reached a record $80.3 billion (€68.6 billion) in 2021 and then steadily declined. This year, global health funding has plummeted to $38.4 billion (€32.8 billion), the lowest level since 2009. Under current trends, researchers expect it to fall another 8 per cent to about $36 billion (€30.8 billion) by 2030. These cuts could undermine years of progress combating diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, the researchers warned. It could also make it harder for people in lower-income countries to access pregnancy services and children's healthcare, and lead to worse water safety and food security. Related 'Utterly devastating': Global health groups left reeling as European countries slash foreign aid Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to be hardest hit by the aid cuts, with a 25 per cent drop since last year and another 7 per cent expected over the next five years. 'The drastic and abrupt reduction to [global health aid] could compromise the progress in health that has been achieved globally,' Dr Angela Apeagyei, the study's lead author and a research assistant professor at IHME, said in a statement. The decline is largely due to budget cuts from major donors, particularly the United States, which has traditionally been the world's top funder of global health. It plans to reduce its foreign assistance by 67 per cent this year compared with 2024, the estimates show. The estimates take into account additional planned cuts from the US, including a proposal to cancel previously approved money for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), as well as US cuts to Gavi, the vaccine-sharing nonprofit, that were announced last month. Related Health gaps have narrowed between rich and poor countries. But progress has stalled, officials warn The United Kingdom and Germany also made large cuts in 2025, redirecting spending to defence, while France reduced its global health funding over domestic concerns about how well the money was being used, the report noted. Not all wealthy countries are slashing health aid. This year, Australia, Japan, and South Korea increased their spending slightly, while aid from Canada, China, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) remained flat. But countries' pledges to boost health spending will not be enough to fill the gap left by the funding cuts, the researchers said.
