Ahhhh, hello blog world. Long time no talk. The weather gods have been playing tricks on me. One day they let me wear tank tops and the next I'm in thermals. Here, if you call it "lake effect", it's all okay apparently. Ann Arbornites are easy to please.
A whirlwind of stuff in my life has put me behind on my random ponderings. I was even behind on reading nytimes! On Friday, Micah brought to my attention a rather depressing manisfestation of the Comprehensive vs Selective Primany Health Care debate in Henan, China (article in the nytimes). So finally, the Chinese government has pledged to to provide AIDS treatment to anyone positively infected with HIV, but (there's always a "but") the government is unable to offer anything besides the most archaic drug cocktails, the ones that are no longer under patent. Some rural farmers encounter such violent side-effects (vomiting, etc) that they decide not to continue treatment. Here's where the debate comes in: selective phc can theoretically be more cost effective in targeting specific problems, like HIV/AIDS patients, but it's inherent narrowness precludes investment in more sustainable comprehensive care that could potentially be more effective at monitoring AIDS patients. Comprehensive phc would be the ideal, but it's geometrically more difficult to convince people to fund broad programs without obvious milestones or fashionable pr quips. For the short term what comes to mind for effective monitoring is perhaps modeling the Henan treatments with a looser form of DOTS or simply more training for counselors. Just a reminder that just getting the "goods" is not enough for health.
A whirlwind of stuff in my life has put me behind on my random ponderings. I was even behind on reading nytimes! On Friday, Micah brought to my attention a rather depressing manisfestation of the Comprehensive vs Selective Primany Health Care debate in Henan, China (article in the nytimes). So finally, the Chinese government has pledged to to provide AIDS treatment to anyone positively infected with HIV, but (there's always a "but") the government is unable to offer anything besides the most archaic drug cocktails, the ones that are no longer under patent. Some rural farmers encounter such violent side-effects (vomiting, etc) that they decide not to continue treatment. Here's where the debate comes in: selective phc can theoretically be more cost effective in targeting specific problems, like HIV/AIDS patients, but it's inherent narrowness precludes investment in more sustainable comprehensive care that could potentially be more effective at monitoring AIDS patients. Comprehensive phc would be the ideal, but it's geometrically more difficult to convince people to fund broad programs without obvious milestones or fashionable pr quips. For the short term what comes to mind for effective monitoring is perhaps modeling the Henan treatments with a looser form of DOTS or simply more training for counselors. Just a reminder that just getting the "goods" is not enough for health.