Advancing a health equity agenda across multiple policy domains: a qualitative policy analysis of social, trade and welfare policy

An evolution of socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health in Korea: Evidence from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) 1998-2018

Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health has become an important health policy agenda. This study aimed to measure socioeconomic inequalities in health in Korea over the past two decades and identify the contributing factors to the observed inequalities. Data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) from 1998 to 2016/2018 were utilized. The concentration index (CI) was calculated to measure health inequalities, and decomposition analysis was applied to identify and quantify the contributing factors to the observed inequalities in health. The results indicated that health inequalities exist, suggesting that poor health was consistently more concentrated among Korean adults with lower income (1998: -0.154; 2016/2018: -0.152). Gender-stratified analyses also showed that poor health was more concentrated in lower income women and men, with the degree of inequalities slightly more pronounced among women. The decomposition approach revealed that income and educational attainment were the largest contributors to the observed health inequalities as higher income and education associated with better self-rated health. These findings suggest the importance of considering socioeconomic determinants, such as income and education, in efforts to tackling health inequalities, particularly considering that self-rated health is a predictor of future mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, it is essential to implement more egalitarian social, labour market, and health policies in order to eliminate the existing socioeconomic inequalities in health in Korea.

Brexit, trade and the governance of non-communicable diseases: a research agenda

BACKGROUND

The UK's post-Brexit trade strategy has potentially important implications for population health and equity. In particular, it will impact on the structural risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including the consumption of health-harming commodities such as tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food and beverages. This article catalogues recent developments in UK trade policy. It then presents a narrative review of the existing research literature on trade and health and previous, prospective studies on the health impacts of Brexit. In so doing it identifies key questions and foci for a future research agenda on the implications of UK's emerging trade regime for NCD prevention.

MAIN TEXT

We identify five key areas for future research. (1) Additional scholarship to document the health effects of key trade agreements negotiated by the UK government; (2) The implications of these agreements for policy-making to address health impacts, including the potential for legal challenges under dispute settlement mechanisms; (3) The strategic objectives being pursued by the UK government and the extent to which they support or undermine public health; (4) The process of trade policy-making, its openness to public health interests and actors and the impact of the political and ideological legacy of Brexit on outcomes; (5) The impact of the UK's post-Brexit trade policy on partner countries and blocs and their cumulative impact on the global trade regime.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is urgently need to understand the ways in which the UK's post-Brexit trade strategy will impact on NCDs and policy responses to address these, including the openness of the trade policy architecture to health issues. The outcomes of this process will have wider systemic effects on the global trade regime with implications for health. Researchers must be cognizant of the ideological components of the policy debate which have been absent from previous analysis of Brexit, trade and health.

Framing the policy debate over tobacco control legislation and tobacco taxation in South Africa

BACKGROUND

In 2018, South Africa opened public consultations on its newly proposed tobacco control bill, resulting in substantial public debate in which a range of arguments, either in favour of or against the Bill, was advanced. These were accompanied by the recurring discussions about the annual adjustments in tobacco taxation. This study uses the concept of framing to examine the public debate in South African print media on the potential effects of the legislation, as well as tobacco tax regulations, between their proponents and detractors.

METHODS

A systematic search of news articles using multiple data sources identified 132 media articles published between January 2018 and September 2019 that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Seven overarching frames were identified as characterising the media debate, with the three dominant frames being Economic, Harm reduction and vaping, and Health. The leading Economic frame consisted primarily of arguments unsupportive of tobacco control legislation. Economic arguments were promoted by tobacco industry spokespeople, trade unions, organisations of retailers, media celebrities and think tanks-several of which have been identified as front groups or third-party lobbyists for the tobacco industry.

CONCLUSION

The dominance of economic arguments opposing tobacco control legislation risks undermining tobacco control progress. Local and global tobacco control advocates should seek to build relationships with media, as well as collate and disseminate effective counterarguments to those advanced by the industry.

Commercial determinants of health: future directions

This paper is about the future role of the commercial sector in global health and health equity. The discussion is not about the overthrow of capitalism nor a full-throated embrace of corporate partnerships. No single solution can eradicate the harms from the commercial determinants of health-the business models, practices, and products of market actors that damage health equity and human and planetary health and wellbeing. But evidence shows that progressive economic models, international frameworks, government regulation, compliance mechanisms for commercial entities, regenerative business types and models that incorporate health, social, and environmental goals, and strategic civil society mobilisation together offer possibilities of systemic, transformative change, reduce those harms arising from commercial forces, and foster human and planetary wellbeing. In our view, the most basic public health question is not whether the world has the resources or will to take such actions, but whether humanity can survive if society fails to make this effort.

'A contradiction between our state and the tobacco company': conflicts of interest and institutional constraints as barriers to implementing Article 5.3 in Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

Bangladesh has not yet adopted measures to implement Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The National Tobacco Control Cell (NTCC) has drafted a guideline for implementation, but progress has stalled amid high levels of tobacco industry interference in public policy. This paper examines the barriers to minimising industry interference in a context of close relationships between government officials and tobacco companies.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with government officials, representatives from civil society, think tank and media organisations, and academic researchers. The data were analysed using a '3 Is' framework developed within the political sciences, emphasising the interactive role of ideas, interests and institutions in policy change.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that policy ideas about protecting public health policy making from tobacco industry interests are largely restricted to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the NTCC specifically. Both individual and institutional conflicts of interest emerge as key barriers to progress to minimising industry interference and for tobacco control governance more broadly. The data also suggest that development of an Article 5.3 guideline has been shaped by the perceived interests of political actors and institutions, and the institutional position of the NTCC, constrained by limits on its resources, authority and isolation from other ministries.

CONCLUSION

NTCC's initiatives towards implementing Article 5.3 constitute an important opportunity to address conflicts of interest that restrict tobacco control in Bangladesh. Progress in minimising industry interference is essential to realising the commitment to being smoke free by 2040.

Connections and Biases in Health Equity and Culture Research: A Semantic Network Analysis

Health equity is a rather complex issue. Social context and economical disparities, are known to be determining factors. Cultural and educational constrains however, are also important contributors to the establishment and development of health inequities. As an important starting point for a comprehensive discussion, a detailed analysis of the literature corpus is thus desirable: we need to recognize what has been done, under what circumstances, even what possible sources of bias exist in our current discussion on this relevant issue. By finding these trends and biases we will be better equipped to modulate them and find avenues that may lead us to a more integrated view of health inequity, potentially enhancing our capabilities to intervene to ameliorate it. In this study, we characterized at a large scale, the social and cultural determinants most frequently reported in current global research of health inequity and the interrelationships among them in different populations under diverse contexts. We used a data/literature mining approach to the current literature followed by a semantic network analysis of the interrelationships discovered. The analyzed structured corpus consisted in circa 950 articles categorized by means of the Medical Subheadings (MeSH) content-descriptor from 2014 to 2021. Further analyses involved systematic searches in the LILACS and DOAJ databases, as additional sources. The use of data analytics techniques allowed us to find a number of non-trivial connections, pointed out to existing biases and under-represented issues and let us discuss what are the most relevant concepts that are (and are not) being discussed in the context of Health Equity and Culture.

Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status has an important effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD). Data on the economic implications of CVD by socioeconomic status are needed to inform healthcare planning.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to project new-onset CVD and related health economic outcomes in Australia by socioeconomic status from 2021 to 2030.

METHODS

A dynamic population model was built to project annual new-onset CVD by socioeconomic quintile in Australians aged 40-79 years from 2021 to 2030. Cardiovascular risk was estimated using the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) from Australian-specific data, stratified for each socioeconomic quintile. The model projected years of life lived, quality- adjusted life-years (QALYs), acute healthcare medical costs, and productivity losses due to new-onset CVD. All outcomes were discounted by 5% annually.

RESULTS

PCE estimates showed that 8.4% of people in the most disadvantaged quintile were at high risk of CVD, compared with 3.7% in the least disadvantaged quintile (p < 0.001). From 2021 to 2030, the model projected 32% more cardiovascular events in the most disadvantaged quintile compared with the least disadvantaged (127,070 in SE 1 vs. 96,222 in SE 5). Acute healthcare costs in the most disadvantaged quintile were Australian dollars (AU$) 183 million higher than the least disadvantaged, and the difference in productivity costs was AU$959 million. Removing the equity gap (by applying the cardiovascular risk from the least disadvantaged quintile to the whole population) would prevent 114,822 cardiovascular events and save AU$704 million of healthcare costs and AU$3844 million of lost earnings over the next 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the pressing need to implement primary prevention interventions to reduce cardiovascular health inequity. This model provides a platform to incorporate socioeconomic status into health economic models by estimating which interventions are likely to yield more benefits in each socioeconomic quintile.

Power and the people's health

Public policy plays a central role in creating and distributing resources and conditions of daily life that matter for health equity. Policy agendas have tended to focus on health care delivery and individualised interventions. Asking why there is a lack of policy action on structural drivers of health inequities raises questions about power inequities in policy systems that maintain the status quo. In this paper we investigate the power dynamics shaping public policy and implications for health equity. Using a Health Equity Power Framework (HEPF), we examined data from 158 qualitative interviews with government, industry and civil society actors across seven policy case studies covering areas of macroeconomics, employment, social protection, welfare reform, health care, infrastructure and land use planning. The influence of structures of capitalism, neoliberalism, sexism, colonisation, racism and biomedicalism were widely evident, manifested through the ideologies, behaviours and discourses of state, market, and civil actors and the institutional spaces they occupied. Structurally less powerful public interest actors made creative use of existing or new institutional spaces, and used network, discursive and moral power to influence policy, with some success in moderating inequities in structural and institutional forms of power. Our hope is that the methodological advancement and empirical data presented here helps to illuminate how public interest actors can navigate structural power inequities in the policy system in order to disrupt the status quo and advance a comprehensive policy agenda on the social determinants of health equity. However, this analysis highlights the unrealistic expectation of turning health inequities around in a short time given the long-term embedded power dynamics and inequities within policy systems under late capitalism. Achieving health equity is a power-saturated long game.

Drivers of differential views of health equity in the U.S.: is the U.S. ready to make progress? Results from the 2018 National Survey of Health Attitudes

OBJECTIVES

The public health sector has long recognized the role of the social determinants of health in health disparities and the importance of achieving health equity. We now appear to be at an inflection point, as we hear increasing demands to dismantle structures that have perpetuated inequalities. Assessing prevailing mindsets about what causes health inequalities and the value of health equity is critical to addressing larger issues of inequity, including racial inequity and other dimensions. Using data from a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States, we examined the factors that Americans think drive health outcomes and their beliefs about the importance of health equity.

METHODS

Using data from the 2018 National Survey of Health Attitudes, we conducted factor analyses of 21 survey items and identified three factors from items relating to health drivers-traditional health influencers (THI), social determinants of health (SDoH), and sense of community health (SoC). Health equity beliefs were measured with three questions about opportunities to be healthy. Latent class analysis identified four groups with similar patterns of response. Factor mixture modeling combined factor structure and latent class analysis into one model. We conducted three logistic regressions using latent classes and demographics as predictors and the three equity beliefs as dependent variables.

RESULTS

Nearly 90% of respondents comprised one class that was characterized by high endorsement (i.e., rating the driver as having strong effect on health) of THI, but lower endorsement of SDoH and SoC. Logistic regressions showed that respondents endorsing (i.e., rated it as a top priority) all three health equity beliefs tended to be female, older, Black or Hispanic, more educated, and have lower incomes. The class of respondents that endorsed SDoH the most was more likely to endorse all three equity beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggested that people historically impacted by inequity, e.g., people of color and people with low incomes, had the most comprehensive understanding of the drivers of health and the value of equity. However, dominant beliefs about SDoH and health equity are still generally not aligned with scientific consensus and the prevailing narrative in the public health community.