The Hill: America’s dangerous and dwindling commitment to global health
Craig Spencer, director of global health in emergency medicine at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine and population and family health at the Columbia University Medical Center

“…Decreasing American support for humanitarian assistance and the World Health Organization would undoubtedly have drastic health repercussions around the globe and here in the United States. … If the Trump administration truly wants to put America first, it should significantly expand funding for global health research and response. This will allow the United States to re-assert itself as a global health leader and improve the lives of billions of people around the world while protecting American citizens at the same time. … Being better prepared to identify and respond to public health threats would allow the U.S. to spend significantly less and respond better than we did to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. That response required an enormous U.S. investment both in West Africa and to protect Americans at home, at a cost many times higher than better prevention and preparedness would have been. For further proof, just look at the American investment in eradicating smallpox. The United States saves the total of all its contributions to ending smallpox every 26 days because it does not have to vaccinate or treat the disease. That’s a deal no good businessman could pass up” (2/13).