At the Center for Health System Sustainability (CHeSS), we help countries learn from one another to optimize patient care and build resilient and sustainable health systems. We do so by leveraging patient-level data and global partnerships to produce comparative data insights and actionable policy recommendations.
What is the biggest issue with the RI healthcare system?
CHeSS: A new center at Brown to study health care systems across countries
A discussion comparing health policy challenges facing the U.S. to those faced by other high-income countries illustrated how the Center for Health System Sustainability aims to improve health care systems through research.
Trade-related tensions between the United States and China have escalated dramatically in recent months. Despite a tentative agreement in May 2025 (extended in August 2025) to reduce the size of newly imposed tariffs on both sides, geopolitical frictions remain. Among other implications, these tensions threaten the cross-border trade of medicines. China has long been a major global supplier of generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients. In recent years, it has also emerged as an important player in new drug development — a field traditionally dominated by the United States and European countries. This shift has implications for global access to promising new medicines and presents challenges for U.S. regulators and policymakers.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of resilient health systems that can manage and adapt to large-scale health crises. However, the relationship between resilience and health system performance remains unclear. While some view performance as a feature of resilience, others conflate the two. Excess mortality—defined as the difference between observed and expected deaths during a given period—is often used to assess resilience, but may introduce bias. In particular, countries with stronger pre-pandemic performance and lower baseline mortality may appear to have worse resilience simply because they had less “room” for mortality to rise under normal conditions.
More than 75% of cancer drugs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through expedited regulatory programs,(1) the use of which often leaves clinical uncertainties that may arise from issues related to trial design, conduct, analysis, or reporting—such as unvalidated end points, limited long-term data, or approval based on a single trial—about drug efficacy and safety.(2) Communicating these uncertainties is important, as clinicians may otherwise be unaware and overestimate a drug’s benefits and underestimate its risks.(3)
Although the FDA describes these uncertainties in detail in its benefit-risk assessments,(2) these documents are not widely read by clinicians. Instead, clinicians often rely on journal publications and guidelines. It is unclear whether clinical trial uncertainties about newly approved cancer drugs are reported in these sources.
Harmonizing International Health Data for Better Outcomes
Professor Irene Papanicolas joins Megan Hall on the Humans in Public Health podcast to discussed her work: she aims to standardize data from across global health systems and compare them in order to inform policy choices and improve health care value and patient care.