Health insurance for the good European citizen? Migrant sex workers' quests for health insurance and the moral economy of health care

"Don't fuss at our staff": A moral economy of volunteerism in South Carolina safety net clinics

In South Carolina, a state that has foregone Medicaid expansion, working poor residents often rely on safety net clinics for medical care. This care often occurs far from major hospitals, in different, inferior, spaces where limited services are provided in lesser circumstances. The temporary and conditional aid provided in these clinics is meant as a last resort, but often serves as the only source of care for many working poor patients, who must manage the effects of sustained precarity and protracted immiseration with conditional aid provided by volunteers. Here I explore the function that volunteering plays in regulating patients' utilization, and ability to contest, the quality of safety net care. Using ethnographic examples and interview data I show how the needs of patients-referred to in the clinics as "clients"-are managed and contained by a moral economy of volunteer care. These reciprocal obligations of debt and duty preclude working poor patients from making demands of, or lodging complaints against, the free clinics' staff, due to their capacity as volunteers, and leaves the state's safety net effectively unassailable to accusations of inefficacy or neglect. Consequently, patients must defer care, ignore episodes of maltreatment, and ration and share prescription medications, lest they be considered recusant or deemed not sufficiently appreciative of the volunteer staff dedicating their time to them. As a result of this moral economy, the plight of the state's uninsured working poor residents goes under-recognized as the safety net absorbs their cases, hiding the attritional nature of the ostensibly free care they receive and ration.

Mental health coverage for forced migrants: Managing failure as everyday governance in the public and NGO sectors in England

High-income countries (HICs) which are said to have "reached" universal health coverage (UHC) typically still have coverage gaps, due to both formal policies and informal barriers which result in "hypothetical access". In England, a user fee exemption has in principle made access to treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health conditions thought to be caused by certain forms of violence universal, regardless of immigration status. This study explores the everyday governance of this mental health coverage for forced migrants in the English National Health Service (NHS) and NGO sector. Fieldwork was conducted in two waves, in 2015-2016 and 2019-2021, including six months of participant observation in an NGO and 21 semi-structured interviews with psy professionals across 16 NHS and NGO service providers. Further interviews were conducted with mental health commissioners and policymakers, as well as analysis of grey literature. Despite being formally covered for certain types of mental health care, in practice asylum seekers and undocumented migrants were often excluded by NHS providers. Undocumented migrants were also often excluded by NGO providers. Several rationalities linked discursive fields to practices developed by psy professionals and other street-level bureaucrats to govern coverage, in a process of "managing failure". These rationalities are presented under three paired themes which draw attention to tensions and resistance in the governance of coverage: medicalisation and biolegitimacy; austerity and ethico-politics; and differential racialisation and decolonisation. Rationalities were associated with strategies and tactics such as social triage, clinical advocacy, obfuscation, evidence-based advocacy and silencing critique. The concept of "health coverage assemblage" is introduced to explain the complex, unstable, contingent and fragmented nature of UHC policies and programmes. Misrecognition and underestimation of the everyday work of health professionals in promoting, resisting and reproducing diverse rationalities within the assemblage may lead to missed opportunities for reform.

Health for all? Pasts, presents and futures of aspirations for universal healthcare

In this special issue, we bring together anthropological and historical work that considers successive aspirations towards 'health for all': their pasts, their futures, and their diverse meanings and iterations. Across the world, hopes for providing 'health for all' were central to nation building in the long 20th century, and for international relations, particularly after the second world war and the establishment of the WHO. Health became seen as a fundamental good by citizens of North and South and has remained a central force shaping global and national politics until today. But what does 'health for all' actually mean, and how did it come to matter? In this introduction we approach 'health for all as a situated, multi-faceted phenomenon, that - while having a shared aspiration towards universality of access and equality of care - comes into focus in partial, diverse and contentious policies, programmes, projects and practices. Beyond homogenising narratives that frame 'health for all' in terms of either success or failure, the special issue highlights the diverse iterations that 'health for all' has taken on the ground for different subjects and groups of people, exploring exclusions and limitations as well as dreams and aspirations.