Alicia Ely Yamin

Bio: Alicia Ely Yamin is an academic researcher from Harvard University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Human rights & Right to health. The author has an hindex of 29, co-authored 122 publications receiving 2703 citations. Previous affiliations of Alicia Ely Yamin include The New School & Partners In Health.

The Power of Numbers: A Critical Review of Millennium Development Goal Targets for Human Development and Human Rights

Abstract: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were heralded as opening a new chapter in international development, and have led to the use of global goals and target-setting as a central instrument defining the international development agenda Despite this increased importance, little is understood about how they influence policy priorities of key stakeholders, and their broader consequences While quantification is the key strength of global goals, it also involves simplification, reification and abstraction, which have far-reaching implications for redefining priorities This paper highlights the key findings and conclusions of the Power of Numbers Project, which undertook 11 case studies of the effects of selected MDG goals/targets, including both the empirical effects on policy priorities and normative effects on development discourses, and drew specifically on human rights principles and human development priorities While the Project found that the effects varied considerably from one goal/target

Litigating health rights : Can courts bring more justice to health?

Abstract: The last fifteen years have seen a tremendous growth in the number of health rights cases focusing on issues such as access to health services and essential medications. This volume examines the potential of litigation as a strategy to advance the right to health by holding governments accountable for these obligations. It includes case studies from Costa Rica, South Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia, as well as chapters that address cross-cutting themes. The authors analyze what types of services and interventions have been the subject of successful litigation and what remedies have been ordered by courts. Different chapters address the systemic impact of health litigation efforts, taking into account who benefits both directly and indirectly--and what the overall impacts on health equity are.

Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.

Abstract: Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks. Objectives To assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission. Search methods An information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020. Selection criteria Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs. Main results We included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS). Authors' conclusions The current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors.

Expanding global access to radiotherapy

Abstract: Summary Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015–35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015–35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries—a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015–35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015–35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015–35 (–$14·9 billion in low-income countries; –$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (–$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

Health disparities and health equity: the issue is justice

Abstract: Eliminating health disparities is a Healthy People goal. Given the diverse and sometimes broad definitions of health disparities commonly used, a subcommittee convened by the Secretary's Advisory Committee for Healthy People 2020 proposed an operational definition for use in developing objectives and targets, determining resource allocation priorities, and assessing progress. Based on that subcommittee's work, we propose that health disparities are systematic, plausibly avoidable health differences adversely affecting socially disadvantaged groups; they may reflect social disadvantage, but causality need not be established. This definition, grounded in ethical and human rights principles, focuses on the subset of health differences reflecting social injustice, distinguishing health disparities from other health differences also warranting concerted attention, and from health differences in general. We explain the definition, its underlying concepts, the challenges it addresses, and the rationale for applying it to United States public health policy.