August 2022

Life expectancy in Africa rose by nearly 10 years between 2000 and 2019, from 46 years to 56 years, according to the World Health Organization’s State of Health in Africa report released Thursday.

However, WHO officials note that is still well below the global average of 64 years. WHO Assistant Regional Director for Africa Lindiwe Makubalo warned the life expectancy gains could easily be lost unless countries strengthen and make greater investments in the development of health care systems.

Speaking from the Republic of Congo’s capital, Brazzaville, she said Africa has made a good start in that direction over the past two decades. On average, she noted, access to essential services like basic primary health care improved to 46% in 2019 compared with 24% in 2000.

“Other factors include improvements in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health,” Makubalo said. “Additionally, the rapid scale-up of health services to tackle infectious diseases such as HIV and TB, as well as malaria, over the past 15 years has been a strong catalyst for improved health life expectancy.”

While progress has been made in preventing and treating infectious diseases, the report found health services for noncommunicable diseases are lagging. It says the dramatic rise in hypertension, diabetes, cancer and other noncommunicable diseases could jeopardize health gains if those conditions continue to be neglected.

The report says the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed greater disruptions to essential health services on the African continent compared to other regions of the world.

Makubalo said those disruptions might affect healthy life expectancy estimates.

“As governments work to restore affected health services, it is crucial not only to aim to re-establish health systems to pre-pandemic levels. Rather, it is important that significant improvements are made, and they are needed to ensure quality, equitable and accessible services for all,” she said.

The report notes some progress has been made in achieving universal health coverage, but it is far from enough. Health officials say one of the key measures to improve access to health services is for governments to increase their public health budgets.

That, they say, would reduce the catastrophic out-of-pocket expenditures by households that are pushing millions of people into poverty.
…

President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed an executive order that the White House said would protect access to abortion care, part of the continuing fallout from a June Supreme Court reversal of its landmark 1973 ruling establishing a right to abortion.

With each of the 50 states now free to write abortion laws as it sees fit, an early test came Tuesday when voters in the Midwestern state of Kansas voted decisively to keep that state’s right to abortion. But several states now outlaw the practice, sometimes even in the case of rape or incest.

“This is just extreme,” Biden said before signing the order, which aims to help people seeking abortions travel to a state where it remains legal. “You know, even the life of the mother is in question in some case — in some states.

“Republicans in Congress and their extreme MAGA ideology are determined to go even further, talking about nationwide bans that would outlaw abortion in every state, under every circumstance, going after the broader right to privacy as well. But as I said before, this fight is not over. And we saw that last night in Kansas.”

This was the second abortion-related executive order that Biden had signed since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. The first executive order, last month, aimed to guarantee access to emergency contraception and abortion medication.

Critics said these White House actions were too vague, and too slow.

“What we’re seeing is the federal government figuring out how they can support abortion patients without violating federal law,” said Elizabeth Nash, state policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that supports abortion rights.

“And so that’s why some of this is so piecemeal,” she said. “And we’re seeing what agencies are going to come up with. And frankly, this is the sort of announcement that we really needed to hear right when Dobbs came down. And so I’m hoping that these agencies can be kick-started into action so that they can catch up. Because we are seeing states ban abortion.”

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Biden administration is working as fast as it can, but “there’s steps and processes that we have to take in order to take actions as big as these.

“But look, there has been an urgency from this president from day one when — when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right,” she said.

Thirteen states immediately banned abortion right after the Supreme Court ruling. In the coming months, four states — California, Kentucky, Michigan and Vermont — will vote on abortion, as Kansas did.

Kansans on Tuesday voted in large numbers, and nearly 59% voted against a proposal to amend the state constitution to remove abortion protections. In this respect, the conservative state echoed national trends: A recent Pew poll found that 61% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Anti-abortion groups decried the Kansas vote and Biden’s actions.

“Biden and the Democrats make a serious error in assuming Americans nationwide agree with their radical agenda — using the full weight of the federal government to impose abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, illegally forcing taxpayers to fund it, ‘cracking down’ on nonprofits that provide life-affirming alternatives, and threatening to destroy any guardrails of democracy that stand in their way,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

No state allows abortion at birth. Most abortions — about 91% of them — happen before the 13-week mark, said the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that abortions at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy represent just 1% of all U.S. abortions. Those cases, it said, are often the result of serious health risks to the fetus or the pregnant person.

Since the ruling, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have urged Congress to enshrine abortion access into federal law. Harris has spent the past few weeks crisscrossing the country to speak about the issue with legislators, health care providers, faith leaders and others.

She said the Biden administration’s policy is clear.

“We trust the judgment of the women of America to make decisions based on what they know is in their best interests,” she said.

“We trust the women of America to make those decisions, if she chooses, in consultation with her faith leader, with her physician, with her loved one. But we understand fully the government should not be making that decision for her.”
…

Two invasive species — the brown tree snake and the American bullfrog — cost the world more than $16 billion between 1986 and 2020, according to a study. 

Researchers say the already-hefty price tag should be seen as a lower limit on the true cost of invasive reptiles and amphibians, especially in under-studied regions such as Africa and South America. The study results were published in the online journal Scientific Reports. 

Invasive species are animals, plants or other living things that aren’t native to the places where they live and damage their new environments. Humans spread many of the more than 340 invasive reptile and amphibian species — as stowaways in cargo or through the exotic pet trade, for instance. 

Invasive reptiles and amphibians can damage crops, destroy infrastructure, spread disease and upset ecosystems. The damage is costly, but scientists still don’t fully understand the extent of the economic impact wrought by invasive species. 

For the study, biologist and study author Ismael Soto of the University of South Bohemia, and Ceske Budejovice in the Czech Republic, and his colleagues, estimated the global cost of invasive reptiles and amphibians using a database called InvaCost. The database collects the results of thousands of studies, reports and other documents produced by scientists, governments and non-governmental organizations. 

The data revealed that invasive reptiles and amphibians have cost at least $17 billion worldwide between 1986 and 2020.  

“But this cost mostly focused on two species — the brown tree snake [and] the American bullfrog,” Soto told VOA in an interview via Zoom. “But there are almost 300 invasive species of reptiles [and] amphibians. So, this means that our cost is really underestimated.”  

The two species have received a disproportionate amount of attention from researchers, said economist Shana McDermott of Trinity University, who was not involved in the study. 

“When you talk about invasives, people immediately will probably say, ‘Oh, the brown tree snake,’ just because its impacts are so wide-ranging,” she said via Zoom. “It’s got ecosystem biodiversity impacts. It’s got impacts to human health — it sends people to the hospital every year with bites. It takes down energy infrastructure. … And so, of course, people are like, ‘Oh God! That’s an incredibly dangerous invasive! Let’s understand it better.'”  

The research bias toward a few well-known species also skews the distribution of costs worldwide. For instance, 99.6% of the $10.4 billion in costs from reptile invasions were in Oceania and the Pacific Islands, largely reflecting damage dealt by the brown tree snake in Hawaii, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands. Likewise, most damage from amphibians was in Europe.  

But that doesn’t mean invasive reptiles and amphibians aren’t problematic elsewhere. Soto said there are many invasive amphibians in Africa, but their costs probably haven’t been quantified.  

“There’s not enough research in these countries [to] detect the economic costs,” he said. 

Soto also noted that the current cost estimate only includes costs that are easily quantified. Destroyed crops or property are easier to count than reduced quality of life or indirect damage to human health and assigning dollar values to ecological damage is trickier still, McDermott said. 

“We’re still in this very early stage of trying to understand the economic costs, and trying to understand how invasive species impact ecosystems, how they impact people’s quality of life,” she said, adding that she wants to include the price of biodiversity losses in future cost estimates. 

Soto and McDermott agreed that future studies should not only quantify the costs of more species in more regions but also project how the costs will evolve with time, especially as climate change continues to facilitate the spread of more invasive species. 

“There is a lot still left to be determined. … I do think that quantifying it is the first step, though,” said McDermott. “Unless you can put a dollar value on it, unfortunately, you don’t get [policymakers’] attention for policy. So, this is an incredibly important topic. … We really shouldn’t be waiting on more studies to act.” 

 
…

A bill enhancing health care and disability benefits for millions of veterans exposed to toxic burn pits won final approval in the Senate on Tuesday, ending a brief stalemate over the measure that had infuriated advocates and inspired some to camp outside the Capitol.

The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 86-11. It now goes to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law. Biden described the legislation as the biggest expansion of benefits for service-connected health issues in 30 years and the largest single bill ever to comprehensively address exposure to burn pits.

“I look forward to signing this bill, so that veterans and their families and caregivers impacted by toxic exposures finally get the benefits and comprehensive health care they earned and deserve,” Biden said.

The Senate had overwhelming approved the legislation back in June, but a do-over was required to make a technical fix. That process derailed when Republicans made a late attempt to change another aspect of the bill last week and blocked it from advancing.

The abrupt delay outraged veterans groups and advocates, including comedian Jon Stewart. It also placed GOP senators in the uncomfortable position of delaying the top legislative priority of service organizations this session of Congress.

A group of veterans and their families have been camping out at the Capitol since that vote. They had endured thunderstorms and Washington’s notorious summer humidity, but they were in the galleries as senators cast their votes.

“You can go home knowing the good and great thing you have done and accomplished for the United States of America,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told them.

The legislation expands access to health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs for millions who served near burn pits. It also directs the VA to presume that certain respiratory illnesses and cancers were related to burn pit exposure, allowing veterans to obtain disability payments to compensate for their injury without having to prove the illness was a result of their service.

Roughly 70% of disability claims related to burn pit exposure are denied by the VA due to lack of evidence, scientific data and information from the Defense Department.

The military used burn pits to dispose of such things as chemicals, cans, tires, plastics and medical and human waste.

Hundreds of thousands of Vietnam War era veterans and survivors also stand to benefit from the legislation. The bill adds hypertension, or high blood pressure, as a presumptive disease associated with Agent Orange exposure.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that about 600,000 of 1.6 million living Vietnam vets would be eligible for increased compensation, though only about half would have severe enough diagnoses to warrant more compensation.

Also, veterans who served in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Guam, American Samoa and Johnston Atoll will be presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange. That’s another 50,000 veterans and survivors of deceased veterans who would get compensation for illnesses presumed to have been caused by their exposure to the herbicide, the CBO projected.

The bill is projected to increase federal deficits by about $277 billion over 10 years.

The bill has been a years-long effort begun by veterans and their families after they had returned from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and experienced maladies that they suspected were caused by their close proximity to burn pits. It was named after Sgt. First Class Heath Robinson from Ohio, who died in 2020 from cancer he attributed to prolonged exposure to burn pits. His widow, Danielle Robinson, was first lady Jill Biden’s guest at the president’s State of the Union address earlier this year.

Stewart, the former host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, also brought increased exposure to the burn pit maladies veterans were facing. He also was in the gallery watching the vote Tuesday. He wept and held his head in his hand as the final vote began.

“I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a situation where people who have already given so much had to fight so hard to get so little,” he said after the vote. “And I hope we learn a lesson.”

The House was the first to act on the burn pits legislation. An earlier version the House approved in March was expected to increase spending by more than $320 billion over 10 years, but senators trimmed some of the costs early on by phasing in certain benefit enhancements. They also added funds for staffing to help the VA keep up with the expected increase in demand for health care and an increase in disability claims.

Some GOP senators are still concerned that the bill will increase delays at the VA because of an increased demand for veterans seeking care or disability compensation.

“What we have learned is that the VA cannot deliver what is promised because it does not have the capacity to handle the increase,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Jerry Moran, R-Kan., led the effort to get the bill passed in the Senate. After passage, Tester told reporters he received a call from Biden, thanking him for “taking a big weight” off his shoulder.

Moran said that when the bill failed to pass last week, he was disappointed but remembered the strength of the protesters who had sat outside in the scorching heat for days.

“Thanks to the United States Senate for demonstrating when there’s something good and a good cause, this place still works,” Moran said. 
…

The United States sued Idaho on Tuesday over a state law that it says imposes a “near-absolute ban” on abortion and also sought to block the Western state from prosecuting or disciplining doctors, according to a court filing.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for Idaho, seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against the state prohibiting enforcement of the law and asked the court to rule that the state law violates federal statutes.

The lawsuit also alleges the state law interferes with the United States’ pre-existing agreements with hospitals under Medicare, referring to the federal health care program for seniors.

“Today, the Justice Department’s message is clear … if a patient comes into the emergency room with a medical emergency jeopardizing the patient’s life or health, the hospital must provide the treatment necessary to stabilize that patient,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference in Washington announcing the filing.

“This includes abortion, when that is the necessary treatment,” Garland added.

Tuesday’s lawsuit marks the Justice Department’s first legal battle over reproductive rights since the Supreme Court in June overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that recognized women’s constitutional right to abortion.

Idaho in March became the first state to enact a six-week abortion ban modeled on a Texas law that empowers private citizens to sue abortion providers. The law bans abortion before many women know they are pregnant.
…