What the UK government is (not) doing about health inequalities

Did the English strategy reduce inequalities in health? A difference-in-difference analysis comparing England with three other European countries

BACKGROUND

Between 1997 and 2010, the English government pursued an ambitious programme to reduce health inequalities, the explicit and sustained commitment of which was historically and internationally unique. Previous evaluations have produced mixed results. None of these evaluations have, however, compared the trends in health inequalities within England with those in other European countries. We carried out an innovative analysis to assess whether changes in trends in health inequalities observed in England after the implementation of its programme, have been more favourable than those in other countries without such a programme.

METHODS

Data were obtained from nationally representative surveys carried out in England, Finland, the Netherlands and Italy for years around 1990, 2000 and 2010. A modified difference-in-difference approach was used to assess whether trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 were more favourable as compared to the period 1990-2000 in England, and the changes in trends in inequalities after 2000 in England were then compared to those in the three comparison countries. Health outcomes were self-assessed health, long-standing health problems, smoking status and obesity. Education was used as indicator of socioeconomic position.

RESULTS

After the implementation of the English strategy, more favourable trends in some health indicators were observed among low-educated people, but trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 in England were not more favourable than those observed in the period 1990-2000. For most health indicators, changes in trends of health inequalities after 2000 in England were also not significantly different from those seen in the other countries.

CONCLUSIONS

In this rigorous analysis comparing trends in health inequalities in England both over time and between countries, we could not detect a favourable effect of the English strategy. Our analysis illustrates the usefulness of a modified difference-in-difference approach for assessing the impact of policies on population-level health inequalities.

Income distribution, public services expenditures, and all cause mortality in US States

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this paper is to investigate the relation between state and local government expenditures on public services and all cause mortality in 48 US states in 1987, and determine if the relation between income inequality and mortality is conditioned on levels of public services available in these jurisdictions.

METHODS

Per capita public expenditures and a needs adjusted index of public services were examined for their association with age and sex specific mortality rates. OLS regression models estimated the contribution of public services to mortality, controlling for median income and income inequality.

RESULTS

Total per capita expenditures on public services were significantly associated with all mortality measures, as were expenditures for primary and secondary education, higher education, and environment and housing. A hypothetical increase of 100 US dollars per capita spent on higher education, for example, was associated with 65.6 fewer deaths per 100,000 for working age men (p<0.01). The positive relation between income inequality and mortality was partly attenuated by controls for public services.

DISCUSSION

Public service expenditures by state and local governments (especially for education) are strongly related to all cause mortality. Only part of the relation between income inequality and mortality may be attributable to public service levels.

Consuming research, producing policy?

The authors' 1990 article "Producing Health, Consuming Health Care" presented a conceptual framework for synthesizing a rapidly growing body of findings on the nonmedical determinants of health. The article received a very positive response, and here the authors reflect on what lessons might be learned from that response about the style or content of effective interdisciplinary communication. Much substantive knowledge has been accumulated since 1990, and a number of different frameworks have been developed before and since. The authors situate theirs within this literature and consider how they might have modified it if they "knew then what they know now." They ask what impact this article, and the much broader stream of research on the determinants of health, has had on public policy?