Interview with a Global Health Professional: Health Policy Analyst

Where do you work and what do you do?

International health economists employ economic theory and quantitative evidence to answer questions like:
-How can low- and middle-income countries use their resources most efficiently to improve the health of their citizens?
-What are the implications of different insurance schemes and other health systems reforms?
-How can donors improve the effectiveness of foreign assistance for health?
-Which policy interventions have the greatest health impacts?
-Do the current aid practices create any perverse incentives or unintended consequences for health systems in poor countries?

As a policy analyst with a DC-based think tank, I helped my bosses address these type of issues for the past several years. In concrete terms, this meant that on any given day my responsibilities consisted of drafting research proposals, working papers, policy briefs and blog posts; collecting and analyzing data; organizing workshops; publicizing our findings through the media, conference and stakeholder meetings; and tracking related policy developments.

Now that I'm in a PhD program, most of my time is taken up with coursework in  microeconomics, game theory, applied econometrics, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Although I'm still a couple of years away from my dissertation, I've already begun to rely on these tools for independent research and consulting; for example, I'm currently in India for the summer to evaluate the impact of community health insurance schemes on poor patients and affiliated hospitals.

What is you favorite thing about working in global health?

I love the think tank environment: the work is intellectually engaging, with a great deal of flexibility to set your own research agenda and policy priorities. One of the main objectives is to translate academic research into actionable policy proposals, which results in a broad network of close collaborators ranging from experts from the ivory tower to policy wonks on the Hill. Almost all of these individuals are doing something interesting and are truly passionate about their work. And there's nothing more rewarding than mobilizing their support for a new proposal and watching it succeed.

Least favorite thing?

On the other hand, working in Washington can sometimes feel like an echo chamber that's very far removed from any real impact; this is even more true in academia ("why am I doing this problem set again?"). And it can be frustrating to watch the donors make the same mistakes over and over again without investing the time or resources to truly understand what works...and what doesn't.