Lancet study projects US foreign aid cuts could result in over 1.4 crore preventable deaths globally
USAID
) could result in over 1.4 crore preventable deaths by 2030, a third of which could be among children aged under five, according to a study published in The Lancet journal.
The study said the fund cuts could reverse decades of progress and that for many low and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a "global pandemic" or a "major armed conflict".
In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said President Donald Trump's administration has cancelled 83 per cent of all programmes at USAID, the world's largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid.
The cuts "risk abruptly halting -- and even reversing -- two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations," study coordinator Davide Rasella, research professor at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) in Spain, said.
"For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," Rasella said.
The researchers also estimated that between 2001 and 2021, more than nine crore deaths in low and middle-income countries were prevented because of USAID-supported programmes. About a third of these were among children.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," first author Daniella Cavalcanti, a postdoctoral researcher at the Federal University of Bahia, Brazil, said.
For the analysis, the researchers used models to forecast impacts due to two scenarios -- continuing funding at the 2023-level, or implementing the sharp reduction of 83 per cent announced in March 2025.
"Current steep funding cuts could result in more than 1,40,51,750 additional all-age deaths, including 45,37,157 in children younger than age five years, by 2030," the authors wrote.
The study also found that USAID-supported programmes were associated with a 15 per cent reduced all-cause mortality and a 32 per cent reduced death rates among children under five.
Further, in countries receiving high levels of USAID support, the strongest impact was found in priority disease areas -- deaths from HIV/AIDS fell by 74 per cent, malaria by 53 per cent, and neglected tropical diseases by 51 per cent, compared to countries receiving low or no support.
The research is the first comprehensive analysis to assess the impact of total USAID funding, including support for health care, nutrition, humanitarian aid, development, education, and related sectors, on mortality rates in low and middle-income countries over the past two decades, the study said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Study links air pollution to preterm births, low birth weight in India
Air pollution, a hazard endured everyday by millions across India in varying degrees, has long been associated with a range of respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and a growing list of health issues. Now, a new study reveals the damaging effects of air pollution extend far beyond the lungs and heart, affecting people before they are even born. Published in PLoS Global Public Health, the study was carried out by researchers from institutions in India, Thailand, Ireland, and the UK, with data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) along with satellite data. The team assessed the influence of ambient air quality on birth outcomes, specifically preterm births (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW). The dataset included children aged 0 to 5 years; 52% were female and 48% male. The results suggest that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) during pregnancy significantly increases the likelihood of these adverse outcomes. PM2.5 consists of airborne particles less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter. According to the study, mothers exposed to increased levels of PM2.5 had a 70% higher chance of delivering prematurely compared to those who weren't exposed. The odds of giving birth to a baby with low birth weight rose by 40% for mothers who faced higher air pollution levels. Northern states at more risk A particularly significant finding in the study is the regional disparity: specifically, Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar bear the brunt of the consequences of air pollution. These regions are known for being heavily industrialised with high vehicular emissions and the widespread use of solid fuels for cooking. This conclusion aligns with previous reports. Another recent study in The Lancet reported that the average PM2.5 concentration in Delhi was 13.8-times higher than that in Kerala. PTB was most prevalent in Himachal Pradesh (39%) and Delhi (17%) while LBW was most common in Punjab (22%) and Delhi (19%). Female children were more likely to be born with LBW (20%) compared to males (17%) — although both conditions were found to be more frequent among children of illiterate and poorer mothers. Households that used solid fuel to cook also reported higher rates of both LBW and PTB. Higher levels of PM2.5 during pregnancy significantly increased the likelihood of both LBW and PTB by 1.37x and 1.67x, respectively, with even a slight rise in temperature linked to an increase in LBW cases, though not PTB. Higher temperatures have previously been linked to maternal dehydration, heat stress, and increased cardiovascular strain, all of which impair placental function and disrupt foetal growth. Conversely, excessive rainfall, especially during the monsoon, raises the risk of waterborne infections, which can further hinder foetal growth, the study suggests. Flooding and displacement associated with heavy rains can also disrupt healthcare access, leading to delayed medical interventions and increasing the likelihood of pregnancy complications. Region-specific interventions The study's findings clarify that while India has made some progress in tackling air pollution with initiatives like the National Clean Air Programme, more needs to be done to mitigate the risks posed by poor air quality. The study's results suggest the government's target to reduce particulate matter concentrations by 20% by 2024 is a step in the right direction, although it may not be enough to address the public health crisis growing in tandem. The authors call for more comprehensive interventions to reduce exposure to air pollution, particularly in North India, which has been identified as the most vulnerable region. In addition to addressing outdoor air pollution, the study highlights the importance of tackling indoor pollution, particularly from the burning of solid fuels in households. Cleaner cooking technologies and better access to clean energy could significantly reduce the harmful effects of indoor air pollution, especially in rural areas. The research also calls for greater integration of air quality data with health surveillance systems to identify at-risk populations and implement targeted interventions. A more localised approach, focusing on the specific needs of high-risk regions, is necessary to mitigate the impacts of air pollution on maternal and child health. Public health initiatives should prioritise the development of climate-resilient healthcare strategies, such as heat action plans and improved water management systems, to protect pregnant women from the dual threats of air pollution and extreme weather events, the study says.
Mint
15 hours ago
- Mint
When an HIV Scientific Breakthrough Isn't Enough
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- A landmark breakthrough in HIV prevention — a scientific feat decades in the making — received final approval from the Food and Drug Administration last month. Gilead Sciences' lenacapavir is so effective that global health leaders had started to cautiously talk about the end of an epidemic that continues to kill more than 600,000 people each year. We should be celebrating its arrival. Instead, aid groups and the countries most affected by HIV are reeling from the Trump administration's relentless attacks on the global health infrastructure. Instead of perfecting plans for a rollout of the medication, they are scrambling to ensure people with HIV have the drugs they need to survive. Last year, I wrote about the stunning — or as one HIV expert described it, 'spine-chilling'— results from a large study of lenacapavir. None of the women and adolescents who were given the twice-yearly injection in the trial became infected with HIV. In a second study involving men who have sex with men, and transgender individuals who have sex with men, the treatment was 96% effective. Even better, Gilead is working on a newer version that could potentially offer protection for a year or more. That's about as close to an HIV vaccine we're likely to get — at least for many years. It's also the world's best shot of achieving the goal of ending HIV by 2030. For low- and middle-income countries that continue to face frustratingly stubborn infection rates, a twice-yearly drug could be a game-changer. Although existing treatments of daily pills do an excellent job at preventing infection, getting people to use them consistently has been difficult. There is the stigma attached to the pills. Ensuring patients return for frequent testing and refills is also challenging — as is simply remembering to take them daily. Consider the typical day of a mom with a newborn and it's easy to understand how six months of protection could make a real difference in lowering HIV cases in women and infants. Some experts have even suggested lenacapavir is our best chance of wiping out new infections in children. That was before the Trump administration abruptly shut down USAID, the lead agency behind Pepfar. The global initiative to combat HIV/AIDS is credited with saving an estimated 26 million lives since its inception in 2003. Although the administration granted a limited waiver to allow some HIV services to continue, funding is significantly restrained. As health workers grapple with fewer resources, their focus has shifted to people living with HIV. 'When the chips are down, you safeguard treatment because those people will die if they don't get their antiretroviral,' says Linda-Gail Bekker, director of the Desmund Tutu HIV Centre at the University of Cape Town. And yet, she said, 'prevention we know is an absolute cornerstone to bringing this epidemic under control.' Because the situation is so dynamic, it's been difficult to capture what's happening on the ground. The best current model suggests the administration's actions could result in at least 70,000 additional new infections, and another 5,000 deaths in the next five years. UCLA infectious disease epidemiologist Dvora Joseph Davey says that in 2024, the eight public health clinics in Cape Town — where she is based — saw three infants who were HIV-positive at birth. In the first five months of this year, they've already seen three babies born with the infection. She knows there will be more. One pregnant woman with HIV recently came into the clinic and, at 37 weeks, her viral load was dauntingly high. She'd skipped picking up her last three-month supply of pills. The nurse she'd been seeing was let go as part of the funding cuts, and no one was available to do a blood draw at her last visit, Davey says. If the people who, in theory, should still be benefiting from global aid are falling through the cracks, what hope do we have for prevention? Prevention efforts have already been severely disrupted in some countries. Supply is responsible for some of the upheaval, but the more complicated problem is getting the drugs to the people who need them most. 'We need low-cost product and also a low-cost delivery mode,' says Carmen Pérez Casas, senior strategy lead at Unitaid, a global health initiative hosted by the World Health Organization. The situation for the latter 'has changed radically,' she says. HIV prevention is not as simple as just handing out a prescription. It's first identifying those most at risk of infection, getting them tested to confirm they are negative, and offering counseling about their options. It's ensuring they return for more testing and the next dose of their medication. That requires a vast support network ranging from doctors and nurses to counselors, pharmacists, lab technicians, data scientists and more. Pepfar supported all of that infrastructure. In South Africa, for example, cuts have resulted in lost jobs for some 8,000 health workers focused on HIV. Aid groups are doing their best to ensure the breakthrough's promise is not entirely lost. Their first hurdle is bridging the gap to the arrival of low-cost generic lenacapavir, which isn't expected until sometime in 2027. (Gilead is allowing a handful of drug companies to make and sell generic forms of lenacapavir in the countries most heavily impacted by HIV.) Global health agencies are anxiously awaiting the company's price tag for those countries to understand how far their funding can be stretched. Then they need to get the drug to patients. Experts tell me they've scaled back their expectations given the upheaval with Pepfar. The Trump administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants to foreign countries has created additional hurdles. It's been particularly devastating in South Africa, where the NIH supported a significant chunk of research related to HIV. That means less money to conduct so-called implementation studies for lenacapavir, which are crucial for understanding how to improve the drug's use in the real world. One simple thing the Trump administration could do is free up funding for prevention. Pepfar continues to operate under a waiver that only allows PrEP money to be spent for those who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Groundbreaking science alone won't end HIV. It must be paired with affordability and access. The Trump administration's callous cuts to global health efforts put all of those things at risk — including the promising future where HIV is brought to heel. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News. More stories like this are available on
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
US blames Hamas for attack that hurt two US aid workers in Gaza
The United States on Saturday blamed Hamas for an attack that injured two American aid workers from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation at a food distribution site in Gaza. The US- and Israeli-backed GHF said in a statement that the injured Americans were receiving medical treatment and were in a stable condition with non-life-threatening injuries. 'The attack – which preliminary information indicates was carried out by two assailants who threw two grenades at the Americans – occurred at the conclusion of an otherwise successful distribution in which thousands of Gazans safely received food,' the GHF said. US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce blamed 'Hamas terrorists' for the attack. 'This act of violence against the people actually bringing relief to Gazans lays bare the depravity of Hamas,' she said in a post on X. 'GHF has contributed over 62 MILLION MEALS – nothing will stop these courageous aid workers. We are praying for the rapid recovery of the injured Americans.' The Israeli military earlier accused what it called 'terrorist organisations' of sabotaging the distribution of aid in Gaza. GHF, which began distributing aid in Gaza in May, employs private US military contractors to provide security at their sites. Gaza has seen an escalation in violence as efforts continue to reach a ceasefire agreement. Hamas on Friday said it had responded positively to a US-brokered deal and was prepared to enter talks. US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday. Gazan authorities reported at least 70 people have been killed in the territory by the Israeli military in the last 24 hours, including 23 near aid distribution sites. The ministry did not specify where or how exactly they had been killed. The Israeli military had no immediate comment on the reports. In a statement on Friday, the military said troops had killed 100 militants in Gaza in the past week, and that it had 'operational control' over 65% of Gaza after an offensive against Hamas fighters in the north. The Hamas-run interior ministry in Gaza on Thursday had warned residents of the coastal enclave not to assist the GHF, saying deadly incidents near its distribution sites endangered hungry Gazans. The GHF bypasses traditional aid channels, including the United Nations, which says the US-based organisation is neither impartial nor neutral. Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on Gaza on May 19, the UN says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid handouts. A senior UN official said last week that the majority of people killed were trying to reach aid distribution sites of the GHF. The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered in October 2023, when Hamas attacked southern Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Gaza's health ministry says Israel's retaliatory military assault on the enclave has killed over 57,000 Palestinians. It has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced Gaza's entire population and prompted accusations of genocide and war crimes. Israel denies the accusations.
