Assessing the Human Health Benefits of Climate Mitigation, Pollution Prevention, and Biodiversity Preservation.

Background: Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has amassed great wealth and achieved unprecedented material prosperity. These advances have come, however, at great cost to the planet. They are guided by an economic model that focuses almost exclusively on short-term gain, while ignoring natural capital and human capital. They have relied on the combustion of vast quantities of fossil fuels, massive consumption of the earth's resources, and production and environmental release of enormous quantities of chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, and plastics. They have caused climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss, the "Triple Planetary Crisis". They are responsible for more than 9 million premature deaths per year and for widespread disease - impacts that fall disproportionately upon the poor and the vulnerable. Goals: To map the human health impacts of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. To outline a framework for assessing the health benefits of interventions against these threats. Findings: Actions taken by national governments and international agencies to mitigate climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss can improve health, prevent disease, save lives, and enhance human well-being. Yet assessment of health benefits is largely absent from evaluations of environmental remediation programs. This represents a lost opportunity to quantify the full benefits of environmental remediation and to educate policy makers and the public. Recommendations: We recommend that national governments and international agencies implementing interventions against climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss develop metrics and strategies for quantifying the health benefits of these interventions. We recommend that they deploy these tools in parallel with assessments of ecologic and economic benefits. Health metrics developed by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study may provide a useful starting point.Incorporation of health metrics into assessments of environmental restoration will require building transdisciplinary collaborations. Environmental scientists and engineers will need to work with health scientists to establish evaluation systems that link environmental and economic data with health data. Such systems will assist international agencies as well as national and local governments in prioritizing environmental interventions.

Air Pollution, Political Corruption, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Former Soviet Republics.

Background: Ambient air pollution is a serious problem in many Eastern European countries. Elevated levels of fine airborne particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution in the former Soviet republics relative to the rest of Europe contribute to elevated rates of disease, especially cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objective: Information on the underlying social and political causes of air pollution in Eastern Europe is important for pollution control and disease prevention. Methods: To quantify relationships between pollution, and air-pollution-related CVD, and political corruption throughout Europe and particularly in the former Soviet republics, we relied on the State of Global Air report for information on air pollution levels; on the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study (GBD) for estimates of the burden of air-pollution-related CVD; and on Transparency International (TI) for rankings of governmental corruption. Findings: Air-pollution-related CVD was responsible for an estimated 178,000 (UI: 112,000-251,000) premature deaths and for the loss of 4,010,000 (UI: 2,518,000--5,611,000) productive years of life (DALYs) in 2019 in the former Soviet republics. A significant positive correlation (R = 0.72, p 1.7e-8) was found across Europe between air-pollution-related CVD mortality rates and national corruption rankings. Conclusions: We conclude that lack of governmental transparency, inadequate air pollution monitoring, and opposition by vested interests have hindered air pollution control and perpetuated high rates of pollution-related morbidity and mortality in the former Soviet republics. Ending corruption and modernizing industrial production will be key to air pollution and related diseases.

Air pollution and development in Africa: impacts on health, the economy, and human capital.

BACKGROUND: Africa is undergoing both an environmental and an epidemiological transition. Household air pollution is the predominant form of air pollution, but it is declining, whereas ambient air pollution is increasing. We aimed to quantify how air pollution is affecting health, human capital, and the economy across Africa, with a particular focus on Ethiopia, Ghana, and Rwanda. METHODS: Data on household and ambient air pollution were from WHO Global Health Observatory, and data on morbidity and mortality were from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study. We estimated economic output lost due to air pollution-related disease by country, with use of labour income per worker, adjusted by the probability that a person (of a given age) was working. Losses were expressed in 2019 international dollars and as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). We also quantified the contribution of particulate matter (PM)2·5 pollution to intelligence quotient (IQ) loss in children younger than 10 years, with use of an exposure-response coefficient based on previously published data. FINDINGS: Air pollution was responsible for 1·1 million deaths across Africa in 2019. Household air pollution accounted for 697 000 deaths and ambient air pollution for 394 000. Ambient air pollution-related deaths increased from 361 000 in 2015, to 383 000 in 2019, with the greatest increases in the most highly developed countries. The majority of deaths due to ambient air pollution are caused by non-communicable diseases. The loss in economic output in 2019 due to air pollution-related morbidity and mortality was $3·02 billion in Ethiopia (1·16% of GDP), $1·63 billion in Ghana (0·95% of GDP), and $349 million in Rwanda (1·19% of GDP). PM2·5 pollution was estimated to be responsible for 1·96 billion lost IQ points in African children in 2019. INTERPRETATION: Ambient air pollution is increasing across Africa. In the absence of deliberate intervention, it will increase morbidity and mortality, diminish economic productivity, impair human capital formation, and undercut development. Because most African countries are still early in development, they have opportunities to transition rapidly to wind and solar energy, avoiding a reliance on fossil fuel-based economies and minimising pollution. FUNDING: UN Environment Programme.

COVID-19 and Health Disparities: Structural Evil Unmasked.

Background: Incidence and mortality from COVID-19 are starkly elevated in poor, minority and marginalized communities. These differences reflect longstanding disparities in income, housing, air quality, preexisting health status, legal protections, and access to health care. The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences have made these ancient disparities plainly visible. Methodology: As scholars in Catholic research universities committed to advancing both scientific knowledge and social justice, we examined these disparities through the lenses of both epidemiology and ethics. Findings: We see these widening disparities as not only as threats to human health, societal stability, and planetary health, but also as moral wrongs - outward manifestations of unrecognized privilege and greed. They are the concrete consequences of policies that promote structural violence and institutionalize racism. Recommendations: We encourage governments to take the following three scientific and ethical justified actions to reduce disparities, prevent future pandemics, and advance the common good: (1) Invest in public health systems; (2) Reduce economic inequities by making health care affordable to all; providing education, including early education, to all children; strengthening environmental and occupational safeguards; and creating more just tax structures; and (3) Preserve our Common Home, the small blue planet on which we all live.

Improving and Expanding Estimates of the Global Burden of Disease Due to Environmental Health Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, coordinated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), produces influential, data-driven estimates of the burden of disease and premature death due to major risk factors. Expanded quantification of disease due to environmental health (EH) risk factors, including climate change, will enhance accuracy of GBD estimates, which will contribute to developing cost-effective policies that promote prevention and achieving Sustainable Development Goals. OBJECTIVES: We review key aspects of the GBD for the EH community and introduce the Global Burden of Disease-Pollution and Health Initiative (GBD-PHI), which aims to work with IHME and the GBD study to improve estimates of disease burden attributable to EH risk factors and to develop an innovative approach to estimating climate-related disease burden-both current and projected. METHODS: We discuss strategies for improving GBD quantification of specific EH risk factors, including air pollution, lead, and climate change. We highlight key methodological challenges, including new EH risk factors, notably evidence rating and global exposure assessment. DISCUSSION: A number of issues present challenges to the scope and accuracy of current GBD estimates for EH risk factors. For air pollution, minimal data exist on the exposure-risk relationships associated with high levels of pollution; epidemiological studies in high pollution regions should be a research priority. For lead, the GBD's current methods do not fully account for lead's impact on neurodevelopment; innovative methods to account for subclinical effects are needed. Decisions on inclusion of additional EH risk-outcome pairs need to be guided by findings of systematic reviews, the size of exposed populations, feasibility of global exposure estimates, and predicted trends in exposures and diseases. Neurotoxicants, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and climate-related factors should be high priorities for incorporation into upcoming iterations of the GBD study. Enhancing the scope and methods will improve the GBD's estimates and better guide prevention policy. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5496.

Building New York State Centers of Excellence in Children's Environmental Health: A Replicable Model in a Time of Uncertainty.

Public health programs may be seriously affected in periods of federal retrenchment. During these times, state-based strategies provide an alternate pathway for advancing public health.A 12-year campaign to secure state support for a network of Centers of Excellence in Children's Environmental Health (CEH) promoting health of children across New York State is described. It was driven by rising rates of asthma, birth defects, developmental disorders, and other noncommunicable diseases in children; growing evidence associating hazardous environmental exposures with these conditions; and recognition that federal resources in CEH are insufficient.Critical campaign elements were (1) formation of a statewide coalition of academic health centers, health care providers, public health officials, community advocates, and other stakeholders; (2) bipartisan collaborations with legislative champions and government leaders; (3) assessment of the burden of developmental disorders and noncommunicable diseases associated with environmental exposures among children; (4) maps documenting the presence of environmental hazards in every county statewide; (5) iterative charting of a changing political landscape; and (6) persistence. The 2017 award of a 5-year, $10 million contract to establish Centers of Excellence in CEH demonstrates the value of this statewide strategy.

Assessment of Environmental Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting by Large Health Care Organizations.

Importance: Sustainability practices by large corporations are increasingly important to reduce the environmental and social impacts of the business enterprise. The health care industry represents 18% of the US economy, employs more people than any other economic sector, and is responsible for 10% of US carbon emissions. The engagement of large health care delivery organizations in reporting sustainability efforts has not been previously assessed. Objective: To evaluate sustainability reporting by large US health care delivery organizations compared with reporting trends in all other economic sectors. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of 49 large health care organizations (HCOs) by inclusion on one of the following lists in 2015 or 2016: Fortune 500, S&P (Standard & Poor) 500, Forbes 100 Largest Charities, Becker's Hospital Review of largest HCOs, and 24/7 Wall St's largest state employers. Each HCO was analyzed for sustainability reporting by reviewing the main corporate website, Google search, and search of publicly available databases. The percentage of sustainability reporting by HCOs on each list was compared with the percentage of sustainability reporting by all corporations on each list as obtained from public reports and publicly available databases. Data analysis was conducted in January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentages of large health care corporations and other corporations publicly reporting sustainability information. Results: Forty-nine large for-profit and nonprofit US HCOs were analyzed (10 appeared on >1 list but were analyzed only once) appearing on the Fortune 500 (8 [16%]), S&P 500 (3 [6%]), Forbes 100 Largest Charities (8 [16%]), largest state employers (14 [29%]), largest for-profit HCOs (11 [22%]), and largest nonprofit HCOs (17 [35%]) by facilities owned for sustainability reporting. Among them, 4 of 8 (50%) on the Fortune 500, 1 of 3 (33%) on the S&P 500, and 6 of all 49 health care corporations (12%) published a sustainability report compared with 389 of 500 (78%) on the Fortune 500 and 410 of 500 (82%) on the S&P 500 reporting by all economic sectors. Conclusions and Relevance: The health care delivery sector lags behind other US economic sectors in sustainability reporting. Publicly reporting sustainability activities would provide HCOs with an incentive to quantify and reduce their environmental impacts, lower costs, and protect human health.

Exploration of Global Health Careers Across the Medical Fields.

BACKGROUND: Despite expansion of interest among American medical students in global health (GH), academic medical centers face multiple obstacles to the development of structured GH curricula and career guidance. To meet these demands we sought to provide a systematic analysis of the accounts of GH experts. METHODS: We developed a collaborative, interview-based, qualitative analysis of GH experiences across six career-related themes that are relevant to medical students interested in GH: justification, medical education, economics, research prospects, law and ethics, and work-life balance. Seven GH faculty members were interviewed for 30-90 minutes using sample questions as guidelines. We applied a grounded theory approach to analyze the interview transcripts to discover an emerging theory pertinent to GH trainees. FINDINGS: Regarding justification, 4 respondents defined GH as work with the underserved irrespective of geographic location; 5 respondents found sustainability imperative; and all respondents believe GH creates better physicians. Respondents identified many physician competencies developed through GH medical education, with 5 respondents agreeing that work with underserved populations has transformative potential. Concerning economics, 3 respondents acknowledged GH's popularity among trainees, resulting in increased training opportunities, and 2 respondents emphasized an associated deficiency in program quality. All respondents described career models across specialties. Four respondents noted funding challenges when discussing research prospects. Within the theme of laws and ethics, 4 respondents perceived inadequate accountability, and 6 respondents identified ways to create accountability. Finally, 6 respondents recognized family demands can compromise one's GH career and thus work-life balance. CONCLUSION: Despite diverse perspectives on the meaning and sustainability of GH work, this analysis provides a nascent framework that may inform curricular development for GH trainees. Suggestions are offered for elaborating this framework to fully exploit the transformative potential of GH training in medical education.