Printed Material: Hillary for President, Guidelines for Receiving Contributions

Informational flyer with guidelines for campaign donations. Hillary for President. No date given. Box 14 Folder 1

Printed Material: Hillary for President, Summary of Contribution Rules

Informational flyer with summary of contribution rules. Hillary for President. No date given. Box 14 Folder 1

Tracking Cardiac Rehabilitation Utilization in Medicare Beneficiaries: 2017 UPDATE

PURPOSE: This study updates cardiac rehabilitation (CR) utilization data in a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for CR-eligible events in 2017, including stratification by select patient demographics and state of residence. METHODS: We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who experienced a CR-eligible event and assessed their CR participation (≥1 CR sessions in 365 d), engagement, and completion (≥36 sessions) rates through September 7, 2019. Measures were assessed overall, by beneficiary characteristics and state of residence, and by primary (myocardial infarction; coronary artery bypass surgery; heart valve repair/replacement; percutaneous coronary intervention; or heart/heart-lung transplant) and secondary (angina; heart failure) qualifying event type. RESULTS: In 2017, 412 080 Medicare beneficiaries had a primary CR-eligible event and 28.6% completed ≥1 session of CR within 365 d after discharge from a qualifying event. Among beneficiaries who completed ≥1 CR session, the mean total number of sessions was 25 ± 12 and 27.6% completed ≥36 sessions. Nebraska had the highest enrollment rate (56.1%), with four other states also achieving an enrollment rate \u3e50% and 23 states falling below the overall rate for the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute enrollment, engagement, and program completion rates remain low among Medicare beneficiaries, indicating that many patients did not benefit or fully benefit from a class I guideline-recommended therapy. Additional research and continued widespread adoption of successful enrollment and engagement initiatives are needed, especially among identified populations

Economic analysis of the health impacts of housing improvement studies: a systematic review

Background: Economic evaluation of public policies has been advocated but rarely performed. Studies from a systematic review of the health impacts of housing improvement included data on costs and some economic analysis. Examination of these data provides an opportunity to explore the difficulties and the potential for economic evaluation of housing. Methods: Data were extracted from all studies included in the systematic review of housing improvement which had reported costs and economic analysis (n=29/45). The reported data were assessed for their suitability to economic evaluation. Where an economic analysis was reported the analysis was described according to pre-set definitions of various types of economic analysis used in the field of health economics. Results: 25 studies reported cost data on the intervention and/or benefits to the recipients. Of these, 11 studies reported data which was considered amenable to economic evaluation. A further four studies reported conducting an economic evaluation. Three of these studies presented a hybrid ‘balance sheet’ approach and indicated a net economic benefit associated with the intervention. One cost-effectiveness evaluation was identified but the data were unclearly reported; the cost-effectiveness plane suggested that the intervention was more costly and less effective than the status quo. Conclusions: Future studies planning an economic evaluation need to (i) make best use of available data and (ii) ensure that all relevant data are collected. To facilitate this, economic evaluations should be planned alongside the intervention with input from health economists from the outset of the study. When undertaken appropriately, economic evaluation provides the potential to make significant contributions to housing policy

"More money for health - more health for the money": a human resources for health perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>At the MDG Summit in September 2010, the UN Secretary-General launched the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health. Central within the Global Strategy are the ambitions of "more money for health" and "more health for the money". These aim to leverage more resources for health financing whilst simultaneously generating more results from existing resources - core tenets of public expenditure management and governance. This paper considers these ambitions from a human resources for health (HRH) perspective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) we set out to quantify and qualify the British government's contributions on HRH in developing countries and to establish a baseline.. To determine whether activities and financing could be included in the categorisation of 'HRH strengthening' we adopted the Agenda for Global Action on HRH and a WHO approach to the 'working lifespan' of health workers as our guiding frameworks. To establish a baseline we reviewed available data on Official Development Assistance (ODA) and country reports, undertook a new survey of HRH programming and sought information from multilateral partners.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In financial year 2008/9 DFID spent £901 million on direct 'aid to health'. Due to the nature of the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) it is not feasible to directly report on HRH spending. We therefore employed a process of imputed percentages supported by detailed assessment in twelve countries. This followed the model adopted by the G8 to estimate ODA on maternal, newborn and child health. Using the G8's model, and cognisant of its limitations, we concluded that UK 'aid to health' on HRH strengthening is approximately 25%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In quantifying DFID's disbursements on HRH we encountered the constraints of the current CRS framework. This limits standardised measurement of ODA on HRH. This is a governance issue that will benefit from further analysis within more comprehensive programmes of workforce science, surveillance and strategic intelligence. The Commission on Information and Accountability for Women's and Children's Health may present an opportunity to partially address the limitations in reporting on ODA for HRH and present solutions to establish a global baseline.</p

The Virtual Sociality of Rights: The Case of Women\u27s Rights are Human Rights

This essay traces the relationship between activists and academics involved in the campaign for women\u27s rights as human rights as a case study of the relationship between different classes of what I call knowledge professionals self-consciously acting in a transnational domain. The puzzle that animates this essay is the following: how was it that at the very moment at which a critique of rights and a reimagination of rights as rights talk proved to be such fertile ground for academic scholarship did the same rights prove to be an equally fertile ground for activist networking and lobbying activities? The paper answers this question with respect to the work of self-reflexivity in creating a virtual sociality of rights

Internet & human rights in foreign policy: comparing narratives in the US and EU internet governance agenda

The intricate relationship between Internet, on the one hand, and Human Rights, on the other, is increasingly becoming relevant in foreign policy. Discussions are animated by different actors, providing contributions from multiple perspectives, yet the debate on Internet and Human Rights is still fragmented and has not evolved into a unified agenda. This paper explores this on-going debate over competing perspectives, and frames the current discussion on Internet and Human Rights in foreign policy by providing an overview of the key governmental conferences addressing the Internet and Human rights over the first 3 years (2010-2012) since the beginning of the debate. It then proceeds to analyze key narratives, stakeholders and agendas within these conferences, as well as questions of power and legitimacy. Finally, it argues that the conferences draw from a common discourse and language, but are also representing divergent agendas between stakeholders and states

What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?

The Repugnant Conclusion served an important purpose in catalyzing and inspiring the pioneering stage of population ethics research. We believe, however, that the Repugnant Conclusion now receives too much focus. Avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion should no longer be the central goal driving population ethics research, despite its importance to the fundamental accomplishments of the existing literature

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570