Giving Congress the Good Global Health Stories

I wonder whether Bill Gates, burdened by global cares, counts statistics at night rather than sheep as he tries to fall asleep. He certainly has a talismanic series of them to offer -- some of his "favorites" which he rattled off before the Senate Foreign Relations committee yesterday in an effort to plump Congressional support for global health spending.

For example: the fact that in many target countries, malaria-related deaths have dropped 50%, including in Rwanda and Zambia. Or that there are four million people currently being treated for AIDS, who would have been casualties only a few years ago. Or the fact that since 1960, the number of children who die every year has dropped from 20 million to less than 9 million.

Flanked by fellow luminary Bill Clinton, Gates said he wished "that every American understood how well investments in global health were working." And that, if there were only a greater awareness of such successes, he said, "I think we can get strong support."

While the failures of foreign aid have been well-remarked upon -- an argument that's again found national footing since Haiti's Jan. 12 quake -- global health is one pillar of aid supporting a serious track record of accomplishment. Take, for example, the near-total eradication of polio. Or the fact that since 1950, life expectancy in developing countries has surged from 40 to 65 years. (For more, check out the Gates Foundation's Living Proof project, or Mike Smith's round-up here of success stories from 2009.)

Apart from the obvious -- the moral/humanitarian imperative, its impact from a national security perspective, etc. -- there are other reasons why spending on global health is a smart expenditure. For example, because it's so quantifiable, as Bill Easterly has argued, it's a field less prone to the lack of scrutiny and accountability that can plague other initiatives.

All of these aspects, as Gates and Clinton argue, conspire to make global health a very good investment for U.S. taxpayers. And in asking members on Capitol Hill to back Obama's proposed health aid budget, at the end of the day, let's remember that the actual amount in question -- $8.5 billion -- isn't very much. For all the force of Gates and Clintons' combined star wattage, the proposal they're backing is remains just 1% of the country's military budget.

Okay, when compared to the U.S. military budget, any amount starts to look quite small. Still though, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better outlet for a greenback going overseas.

(For another window into the "good news" statistics in global health, check out the video of Gates's Impatient Optimists presentation over at Chris Murphy's blog.)

Photo Credit: maveric2003