Those who live and die behind prison walls don’t usually get much public attention. Incarceration is, after all, meant to remove criminals from society. But contagious and potentially deadly diseases can’t be locked and left in a penitentiary, especially when infected inmates are eventually released.

The problem of prisoners and ex-convicts transmitting diseases to the general population is especially bad in the countries of the former Soviet Union, where rates of tuberculosis and drug-resistant strains of TB are among the world’s highest.

But Stanford researchers have identified solutions that could help curb tuberculosis in Russia, Latvia, Tajikistan and the 12 other countries in the region. Led by Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, an assistant professor of medicine, the team has shown that a genetic TB and drug resistance screening tool called GeneXpert is more cost effective and better at reducing the spread of the disease than other methods currently recommended by the World Health Organization. Their findings were published online Nov. 27 in PLoS Medicine.

“Tuberculosis doesn’t stop at any border or any locked gate,” said Goldhaber-Fiebert, who is also a faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, a research center at the university’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“Drug-resistant TB is rampant in prisons,” he said. “When infected prisoners get out, they are thought to drive the TB epidemic in the general population. We are looking to find better ways to deal with that.”

About 400,000 cases of TB were diagnosed last year in the 15 former Soviet Union states – 40 times the number reported in the United States. Nearly 80,000 of the sick had drug-resistant TB. According to several studies, the prevalence of TB among the region’s prisoners is 10 times greater than that of the general population.

The WHO suggests three ways to screen for TB in prisons: relying on inmates to report symptoms, actively interviewing prisoners about their health, and administering chest X-rays. The organization doesn’t recommend one method over another, and currently, prisoners in the former Soviet Union are screened annually with miniature chest X-rays.

While X-rays can show whether a lung looks healthy, they don’t always catch TB. And when they do, they cannot differentiate between a TB that can be cured with standard medications and its drug-resistant cousins that require more expensive and extensive treatments.

That’s where GeneXpert has an upper hand.

Since it was introduced in 2005, the diagnostic has been hailed as a potentially powerful tool that can help to cut TB and drug-resistance rates by more accurately diagnosing people and getting them treated. With just a small sample of mucous analyzed by a machine, the GeneXpert system can instantly detect TB and its drug-resistant genetic mutations, well suited to mass screening within the prison systems of the former Soviet Union.

But the GeneXpert test is more expensive than alternative screening methods. And while it promises to be more effective, its impact on total costs had not been quantified in the former Soviet Union region until Goldhaber-Fiebert and his colleagues began their work nearly three years ago.

By developing computer models of the former Soviet Union’s prison populations, the team predicted that using GeneXpert can cut the prevalence of TB among inmates by about 20 percent within four years – provided the screening is combined with standard regimens of drug treatment for infected patients and for those with drug-resistant TB.

“For this to make sense, you need to have the right drugs to cure those individuals you identify,” Goldhaber-Fiebert said.

The additional cost of screening with GeneXpert averages to $71 per prisoner compared to the next best alternative approach, he said.

When compared to the decreases in illness and increases in survival, and factoring the financial and societal costs of TB in the broader population, the method makes good economic sense, he said.

“There is a large, direct value to using this technology for screening in prison settings, and there are potentially substantial secondary benefits to the general population of the former Soviet Union and to the world,” Goldhaber-Fiebert said.

Douglas K. Owens, a professor of medicine who is one of the paper’s co-authors and director of Stanford Health Policy, said the findings could give governments and medical experts the evidence they need to change the way they tackle TB.

“This is the kind of work we hope will inform policymaking about TB control,” Owens said. “We’ve shown there’s a more effective approach for trying to catch TB in prisons, and that means a better chance for preventing the disease from spreading.”

Co-authors on the PLoS Medicine paper also include former Stanford medical student Daniel Winetsky and current Stanford doctoral student in Management Science and Engineering, Diana Negoescu.

The researchers collaborated with the AIDS Foundation East-West. Funding for the study came from Äids Fonds, the International Research & Exchanges Board, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and Stanford.

On October 30, the Program on Human Rights (PHR) at Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) held a day-long conference to examine health and human rights. The conference was held to discuss how a rights-based approach to health services can impact the delivery of effective health interventions and advance other socio-economic and cultural rights in developing regions. The conference titled, “Why We Should Care: Health and Human Rights” was divided into five panels with presenters from diverse backgrounds and professions including lawyers, doctors, public health experts, students and activists.

The Program:

The conference started with a welcoming address by Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights. CDDRL Director Larry Diamond introduced the keynote speaker Paul H. Wise, professor of child health and society and pediatrics at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, and director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes and Prevention. Wise's opening remarks began on a somber note, “The language of rights means very little to a child stillborn, an infant dying in pain from pneumonia or a child desiccated by famine.” In his address, Wise emphasized the need for an aligned and integrated rights-based approach that does not undermine effective and efficient medical interventions. “We need to fill the gap between the worlds of child health and child rights so that our programs and policies are both effective and just,” he stressed.

Following the keynote address, the conference presenters shared their work according to a geographic or thematic focus. The first panel brought together three generations of speakers from Stanford - a faculty member, a pre-doctoral fellow and a recent graduate - in a unique opportunity to share ideas and discuss possibilities of health work in Africa. Rebecca Walker, clinical instructor in emergency medicine at Stanford School of Medicine, presented her impressions and reactions on Mindy Roseman’s study of forced sterilization in Namibia. Roseman, academic director of the Human Rights Program and lecturer on law at Harvard Law School, was unable to attend due to flight complications after hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast.

Eric Kramon, 2011-2012 pre-doctoral fellow at CDDRL, spoke about the political sources of ethnic inequality in health outcomes in Africa.  Kramon’s work in Kenya illustrated how politics plays a determinant role in ethnic inequalities and consequently in access to health and health outcomes. Jeffrey Tran, a 2011 Stanford graduate in human biology, described the vision behind the launch of the Project of Emergency First Aid Responder in Western Cape Province, South Africa that he helped implement. Tran explained, “Individuals and communities are an integral part of the solution and we work with the communities to develop first aid training programs that are taught and eventually run by community members.”

Panel two was dedicated to the health impact of drones in Pakistan and in Gaza. Based on research by the Stanford International Clinic on Human Rights and Conflict Negotiation in Pakistan, Professor James Cavallaro and Stanford law school student Omar Shakir, explained that drones are not only responsible for deaths of civilians but also constitute a constant disturbance to social life and mental health of ordinary people, including their relations with children and the elderly. Drones impact other rights as well - such as the right to education - as children are prevented from attending schools for fear of drone strikes. Rajaie S. Batniji, resident physician in internal medicine at Stanford and a CDDRL affiliate, explained the clinical diagnosis of traumatic disorders that result from constant surveillance and insecurity. He cited the work of Jonathan Mann in defining dignity and the devastating effects on physical, mental, and social well-being when these senses are violated. Batniji explained that populations in Gaza are prevented from living life with dignity and respect because they live under constant threat to their security and intrusion into their homes and communications.

Vivek Srinivasan, manager of the Program on Liberation Technology at CDDRL, presented his experience on the Right to Food Campaign in India. He believes that this campaign has led to the mobilization for rights and the provision of services. “Not all demands are confrontational. Communities begin demanding something that is perceived as small in scope but have ramifications that extend to other rights such as the right to education, the right to housing and the right to work.” According to Srinivasan, the Right to Food Campaign in India has had a tremendous impact in putting hunger on the policy agenda. Suchi Pande, an activist-researcher who worked on the Right to Information Campaign in India for over seven years and was the secretary for the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information from 2006 to 2008, supported Srinivasan’s argument of strong correlation in achievements and right-based mobilization. However, Pande pointed out that despite successes in the Right to Food Campaign, other economic and social rights including the right to health in India continues to be a non-issue for politicians and the government. She is optimistic and believes that rural public hearings, the role of the right to information and its supporting mechanisms will facilitate access to public health in rural India.

In panel four, Sarah MacCarthy showed results that suggest that counseling and testing services for HIV-positive pregnant women remain limited, insufficient or lacking in quality in Salvador, Brazil. “While Brazil’s HIV/AIDS program has been internationally acclaimed, national practice still fails to meet national and global guidelines,” she explained. Calling attention to the regional discrepancies in the HIV/AIDS policy and program implementation in Brazil, Nadejda Marques, manager of the Program on Human Rights at CDDRL,, expressed concerns about the implementation of an HIV/AIDS program in a context of limited resources. “In Angola, counseling and voluntary testing units for HIV/AIDS don’t have drinking water or sanitary conditions to receive patients. They lack basic equipment for testing and data collection, there is a generalized shortage of doctors, and health care providers have no specific training on HIV/AIDS.” Despite this alarming situation, Marques explained that advocating for the rights of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Angola has put in evidence the failure of a heath system unable to provide even the most basic services to its population and has enabled mobilization in a context where human rights are routinely violated.

Ami Laws, adjunct associate professor of medicine at Stanford, described how a physician can provide services in collaboration with the judicial system to advance human rights. Laws is an expert witness on cases of torture survivors that require asylum status in the U.S. and has worked mainly with victims of torture in the Punjab region in India. Everaldo Lamprea, a JSD candidate at Stanford Law School and an assistant professor at Los Andes Law School in Bogotá, Colombia, spoke about his recent comparative study on health litigation in low and middle-income countries. The escalation of right-to-health litigation in these countries can have unexpected and harmful consequences to healthcare reforms and the enforceability of the right to health. In part, this is because significant financial resources are allocated to the litigation processes and not to the health system. In addition, while litigation can highlight gaps that exist in the health system that need regulation, countries have been very slow to adapt and adjust to these signals.

Next Steps:

A number of key ideas, questions and insights emerged from the conference including:

. How to identify an effective intervention that will also mobilize communities to advocate for its implementation?

. How to provide services to the more vulnerable populations without alienating a contingent that has access to basic health care services?

. What instruments can be used to share best practices among national healthcare systems?

. How do global priorities adapt to contexts of limited financial resources and human capital?

. How can punctual achievements in rights that guarantee access to health be expanded for the achievement of other social, economic and cultural rights?

The Program on Human Rights at CDDRL will continue to pursue a research agenda examining health and human rights following the conference and announced that it will be the thematic focus of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Speakers Series in 2014. The PHR is also actively seeking support for research projects that include a right to health component at the core of its academic investigation for the 2012-2013 academic year.

The government’s far-reaching health care foreign aid program has contributed to a significant decline in adult death rates in Africa, according to a new study by Stanford researchers. 

Between 2004 and 2008, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief was associated with a reduction in the odds of death of nearly 20 percent in the countries where it operated. The researchers found that more than 740,000 lives were saved during this period in nine countries targeted by the program, known by its acronym, PEPFAR.

“We were surprised and impressed to find these mortality reductions,” said Eran Bendavid, an affiliate at Stanford Health Policy, part of the university’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“While many assume that foreign aid works, most evaluations of aid suggest it does not work or even causes harm,” said Bendavid, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford’s School of Medicine. “Despite all the challenges to making aid work and to implementing HIV treatment in Africa, the benefits of PEPFAR were large and measurable across many African countries.”



The study is the first to show a decline in all causes of death related to the program. It appears in the May 16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Bendavid is the lead author of the study. It was co-authored by Grant Miller and Jay Bhattacharya, who are both core faculty members of Stanford Health Policy and associate professors of medicine. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Dr. George Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries.

PEPFAR began in 2003 under the Bush administration with a five-year, $15 billion investment in fighting AIDS around the world and a focus on treatment and prevention in 15 countries. It was reauthorized by Congress in 2008 and has expanded its reach to 31 countries.

To measure the impact of the program, Bendavid and his colleagues analyzed health and survival information for more than 1.5 million adults in 27 African countries, including nine countries where PEPFAR has focused its efforts. The researchers examined data available in the Demographic and Health Surveys, a USAID-funded project that involves a representative sampling of in-person interviews among women in which they discuss their health and the health of their family members. These surveys form the foundation of many health measurements in developing countries.

They found the odds of death from any cause among adults were 16 to 20 percent lower in the PEPFAR-targeted countries.

To bolster the results, the scientists did a separate analysis using specific data on PEPFAR programs in Rwanda and Tanzania. They compared regions of the two countries where PEPFAR’s investments led to widespread increases in the number and size of sites providing antiretroviral therapy, with areas where PEPFAR had fewer services available.



“We observed a similar reduction in mortality when exploring PEPFAR’s effects using a different lens,” Bendavid said.

In Tanzania, the odds of death were found to be 17 percent lower and in Rwanda 25 percent lower in the districts with greater support from PEPFAR.

Bendavid speculates that the program’s commitment to building an infrastructure that includes drug distribution systems, clinics, pharmacies, laboratories and testing facilities has been an important factor for its success.

“The scale of PEPFAR’s investment was unprecedented,” Bendavid said. “People working in PEPFAR’s focus countries describe working supply chains, stocked pharmacies and staffed clinics.”



Although the program was targeted to address HIV, these services could have benefitted patients with a variety of other health concerns. For example, one study found that some uninfected, pregnant women in Ethiopia, Rwanda and Tanzania chose to deliver their babies in facilities supported by PEPFAR, Bendavid said.

Some have argued that focusing resources on a specific disease, such as AIDS, may detract efforts from other diseases and activities, undermining some of the benefits of such programs. But the latest study does not support this argument. Rather, it suggests that PEPFAR helped prevent additional deaths from causes other than HIV/AIDS.

“Whether disease-specific programs like PEPFAR have synergies with other health improvement efforts – or instead undermine them, as some have worried – is really an open question,” Miller said. “There are reasons to think either scenario is possible, and more research is needed. We don’t find much evidence of PEPFAR undercutting other initiatives. If anything, we see hints of synergies.”



Bendavid said the program managed to accomplish the reduction in mortality in the face of enormous challenges – from persuading people to go for HIV testing and treatment to dealing with problems of drug shortages and drug resistance.

Historically, few other large-scale health initiatives have succeeded to such an extent. Smallpox, which was eradicated by 1979, is among the rare and more notable examples.

“PEPFAR’s success with HIV … may be considered the clearest demonstration of aid’s effectiveness in recent years,” the researchers concluded.

In 2009, PEPFAR was folded into a new Global Health Initiative that calls for a broader agenda, with some resources redistributed to other programs, such as maternal and child health.

Its budget, which rose dramatically in the early years, has remained relatively flat or declined slightly since then. It peaked at $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2010, then declined to $6.7 billion and $6.6 billion in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively, according to figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Obama administration’s budget request for the 2013 fiscal year is $6.4 billion.

While the program appears to have had an impact within a few years of its implementation, Bendavid noted that reduced investments in fighting AIDS, both through PEPFAR and other international aid programs, could have implications for the future of the epidemic.

“We are transforming the face of the epidemic but funding shortfalls will change the road ahead,” he said.



Ruthann Richter is Director of Media Relations for the Stanford School of Medicine.