Why US Health Care Should Think Globally

Abstract

Why should health care systems in the United States engage with the world's poorest populations abroad while tremendous inequalities in health status and access are pervasive domestically? Traditionally, three arguments have bolstered global engagement: (1) a moral obligation to ensure opportunities to live, (2) a duty to protect against health threats, and (3) a desire to protect against economic downturns precipitated by health crises. We expand this conversation, arguing that US-based clinicians, organizational stewards, and researchers should engage with and learn from low-resource settings' systems and products that deliver high-quality, cost-effective, inclusive care in order to better respond to domestic inequities. Ultimately, connecting "local" and "global" efforts will benefit both populations and is not a sacrifice of one for the other.

Understanding perceptions of global healthcare experiences on provider values and practices in the USA: a qualitative study among global health physicians and program directors

“…Those that did report positive benefits of global health for improved patient-care and the changes to the USA healthcare system overall discuss these more at the individual level—such as reduced spending, better patient care and replicating interventions that had proven effective abroad. These findings are supported by similar research looking at the perspectives of short-term global health residency electives,29 international clinical rotations41 and other forms of global health engagement 42. Additionally, several participants point to the role of global health physicians in preventing pandemics by being better prepared at recognising new infectious diseases, going to the source of the outbreak and identifying the need for the US healthcare system to take infectious disease threats more seriously.…”