Playing fair: fairness beliefs and health policy preferences in the United States

Variation in Public Support for Government Action on Unexpected Medical Bills

CONTEXT

Nearly half of the adults in the United States have received an unexpected medical bill in recent years. While government, provider, and insurance policies related to unexpected medical expenses receive attention in the media, this study focuses on variation in public support.

METHODS

The study employs two multifactor survey vignette experiments to detect how different features of common health care scenarios that result in costly medical expenses influence the public's sympathy for the patient, perceived fairness of the medical costs, and demand for government action.

FINDINGS

The results point to out-of-pocket cost, severity of the treatment, and the patient's insurance situation as important for public opinion. The public is significantly more supportive of government action when the costs are high and out of the patient's control; in contrast, respondents are generally less sympathetic toward patients described as uninsured or who seek out more costly providers.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings underscore the sensitivity of health care attitudes to framing effects, which may occur when media choose how to cover health care costs. The results also point to a potential mismatch in legislation that narrowly addresses "surprise billing," with public support for government addressing disproportionate costs across a broader range of scenarios.

Beliefs around the causes of inequities and intergroup attitudes among health professional students before and after a course related to Indigenous Peoples and colonialism

BACKGROUND

Addressing the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action on including anti-racism and cultural competency education is acknowledged within many health professional programs. However, little is known about the effects of a course related to Indigenous Peoples and colonialism on learners' beliefs about the causes of inequities and intergroup attitudes.

METHODS

A total of 335 learners across three course cohorts (in 2019, 2020, 2022) of health professional programs (e.g., Dentistry/Dental Hygiene, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy) at a Canadian university completed a survey prior to and 3 months following an educational intervention. The survey assessed gender, age, cultural identity, political ideology, and health professional program along with learners' causal beliefs, blaming attitudes, support for social action and perceived professional responsibility to address inequities. Pre-post changes were assessed using mixed measures (Cohort x Time of measurement) analyses of variance, and demographic predictors of change were determined using multiple regression analyses. Pearson correlations were conducted to assess the relationship between the main outcome variables.

RESULTS

Only one cohort of learners reported change following the intervention, indicating greater awareness of the effects of historical aspects of colonialism on Indigenous Peoples inequities, but unexpectedly, expressed stronger blaming attitudes and less support for government social action and policy at the end of the course. When controlling for demographic variables, the strongest predictors of blaming attitudes towards Indigenous Peoples and lower support for government action were gender and health professional program. There was a negative correlation between historical factors and blaming attitudes suggesting that learners who were less willing to recognize the role of historical factors on health inequities were more likely to express blaming attitudes. Further, stronger support for government action or policies to address such inequities was associated with greater recognition of the causal effects of historical factors, and learners were less likely to express blaming attitudes.

CONCLUSION

The findings with respect to blaming attitudes and lower support for government social action and policies suggested that educational interventions can have unexpected negative effects. As such, implementation of content to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Calls to Action should be accompanied by rigorous research and evaluation that explore how attitudes are transformed across the health professional education journey to monitor intended and unintended effects.

Understanding and addressing populations whose prior experience has led to mistrust in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Policy makers need to maintain public trust in healthcare systems in order to foster citizen engagement in recommended behaviors and treatments. The importance of such commitment has been highlighted by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Central to public trust is the extent of the accountability of health authorities held responsible for long-term effects of past treatments. This paper addresses the topic of manifestations of trust among patients damaged by radiation treatments for ringworm.

METHODS

For this mixed-methods case study (quan/qual), we sampled 600 files of Israeli patients submitting claims to the National Center for Compensation of Scalp Ringworm Victims in the years 1995-2014, following damage from radiation treatments received between 1946 and 1960 in Israel and/or abroad. Qualitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and correlations were analyzed with chi-square tests. Verbal data were analyzed by the use of systematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Among 527 patients whose files were included in the final analysis, 42% held authorities responsible. Assigning responsibility to authorities was more prevalent among claimants born in Israel than among those born and treated abroad (χ² = 6.613, df = 1, p = 0.01), claimants reporting trauma (χ² = 4.864, df = 1, p = 0.027), and claimants living in central cities compared with those in suburban areas (χ² = 18.859, df = 6, p < 0.01). Men, younger claimants, patients with a psychiatric diagnosis, and patients from minority populations expressed mistrust in health regulators.

CONCLUSIONS

Examining populations' perceived trust in healthcare institutions and tailoring health messages to vulnerable populations can promote public trust in healthcare systems.

Who does COVID-19 hurt most? Perceptions of unequal impact and political implications

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected.

How Much Does the US Public Value Equity in Health? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to summarize and qualitatively assess published evaluations on the US public's preferences for health equity and their willingness to trade-off efficiency for equity.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension guidelines, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant peer-reviewed publications on this topic before February 2021. We included English-language articles that solicited US preferences regarding efficiency-equity trade-offs and prioritizing healthcare resources based on socioeconomic status, race, disability, or burden of disease. Quantitative and qualitative data captured were decided a priori and iteratively adapted as themes emerged.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were found over a 25-year span. Only 4 focused on resource allocation across social groups. Three distinct notions of fairness were studied: equal distribution of resources, priority to the worse-off, and equal health achieved. We found modest support for equal distribution of resources and willingness to sacrifice efficiency for equity in the United States. Prioritizing the underserved was relatively less studied and received less support and was more preferred when resources were scarce, when allocating resources between social groups, or when participants were informed about the fundamental origins of health inequities. Equal health was the least studied, but received nontrivial support.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing literature evaluating the US public's understanding and preferences toward equity was severely limited by the lack of rigorous quantitative studies and heterogeneous attribute selection and fairness definitions. High-quality studies that clearly define fairness, focus on social groups, and apply rigorous methods to quantify equity preferences are needed to integrate the public's value on equity into healthcare decisions.

The welfare state in really hard times: Political trust and satisfaction with the German healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an enormous challenge for healthcare systems around the globe. Using original panel survey data for the case of Germany, this article studies how specific trust in the healthcare system to cope with this crisis has evolved during the course of the pandemic and whether this specific form of trust is associated with general political trust. The article finds strong evidence for a positive and robust association between generalized political trust and performance perceptions regarding the efficiency and fairness of the crisis response as well as individual treatment conditions. The article also shows that specific trust in healthcare remained relatively stable throughout 2020, but declined significantly in the spring of 2021.

How do Chinese people perceive their healthcare system? Trends and determinants of public satisfaction and perceived fairness, 2006-2019

BACKGROUND

The public's perception of the health system provides valuable insights on health system performance and future directions of improvement. While China's health care reform was a response to people's discontent in the health care system due to the lack of accessibility and affordability, little is known on changes in public perception of China's health system. This paper examines trends in public perception of the health system between 2006 and 2019 and assesses determinants of public perception in China's health system.

METHODS

Seven waves of the China Social Survey, a nationally representative survey, were used to examine trends in public satisfaction with health care and perceived fairness in health care. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences across waves. Logistic regression models were used to explore determinants of public perception, including variables on sociodemographic characteristics, health system characteristics, and patient experience.

RESULTS

Satisfaction with health care increased from 57.76% to 77.26% between 2006 and 2019. Perceived fairness in health care increased from 49.79% to 72.03% during the same period. Both indicators showed that the major improvement occurred before 2013. Sociodemographic characteristics are weakly associated with public perception. Financial protection and perceived medical safety are strongly associated with public perception, while accessibility is weakly associated with public perception. Patient experience such as perceived affordability and quality in the last medical visit are strongly associated with public perception of the health care system, while the accessibility of the last medical visit shows no impacts.

CONCLUSION

Public satisfaction on health care and perceived fairness in health care in China improved over 2006-2019. The main improvement occurred in accordance with huge financial investments in public health insurance before 2013. Financial protection and perceived quality play significant roles in determining public perception, whereas accessibility and sociodemographic characteristics have limited influence on people's perception of China's health system. To achieve higher satisfaction and a higher sense of fairness in health care, China's health system needs to continue its reforms on hospital incentives and integrated delivery system to control health expenditure and improve health care quality.

Linking Data on Constituent Health with Elected Officials' Opinions: Associations Between Urban Health Disparities and Mayoral Officials' Beliefs About Health Disparities in Their Cities

Policy Points Mayoral officials' opinions about the existence and fairness of health disparities in their city are positively associated with the magnitude of income-based life expectancy disparity in their city. Associations between mayoral officials' opinions about health disparities in their city and the magnitude of life expectancy disparity in their city are not moderated by the social or fiscal ideology of mayoral officials or the ideology of their constituents. Highly visible and publicized information about mortality disparities, such as that related to COVID-19 disparities, has potential to elevate elected officials' perceptions of the severity of health disparities and influence their opinions about the issue.

CONTEXT

A substantive body of research has explored what factors influence elected officials' opinions about health issues. However, no studies have assessed the potential influence of the health of an elected official's constituents. We assessed whether the magnitude of income-based life expectancy disparity within a city was associated with the opinions of that city's mayoral official (i.e., mayor or deputy mayor) about health disparities in their city.

METHODS

The independent variable was the magnitude of income-based life expectancy disparity in US cities. The magnitude was determined by linking 2010-2015 estimates of life expectancy and median household income for 8,434 census tracts in 224 cities. The dependent variables were mayoral officials' opinions from a 2016 survey about the existence and fairness of health disparities in their city (n = 224, response rate 30.3%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for characteristics of mayoral officials (e.g., ideology) and city characteristics.

FINDINGS

In cities in the highest income-based life expectancy disparity quartile, 50.0% of mayoral officials "strongly agreed" that health disparities existed and 52.7% believed health disparities were "very unfair." In comparison, among mayoral officials in cities in the lowest disparity quartile 33.9% "strongly agreed" that health disparities existed and 22.2% believed the disparities were "very unfair." A 1-year-larger income-based life expectancy disparity in a city was associated with 25% higher odds that the city's mayoral official would "strongly agree" that health disparities existed (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25; P = .04) and twice the odds that the city's mayoral official would believe that such disparities were "very unfair" (OR = 2.24; P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mayoral officials' opinions about health disparities in their jurisdictions are generally aligned with, and potentially influenced by, information about the magnitude of income-based life expectancy disparities among their constituents.

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.

Population Health Science: Fulfilling the Mission of Public Health

Policy Points The historical mission of public health is to ensure the conditions in which people can be healthy, and yet the field of public health has been distracted from this mission by an excessive reliance on randomized-control trials, a lack of formal theoretical models, and a fear of politics. The field of population health science has emerged to rigorously address all of these constraints. It deserves ongoing and formal institutional support.

Public opinion about the health care system in Armenia: findings from a cross-sectional telephone survey

Background

Few studies have examined public opinion about the health care system in the former Soviet region. The objective of our study was to evaluate the population’s satisfaction with the health care system and identify factors associated with it in Armenia.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey among 576 adult residents of the capital Yerevan using Random Digit Dialing technique. Simple and multivariate logistic regression explored associations between potential determinants and satisfaction.

Results

A substantial proportion of respondents (45.5%) were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the health system. About 49% of respondents negatively evaluated the ability of the system to provide equal access to care. About 69% of respondents thought that the responsibility for an individual’s health should be equally shared between the individual and the government or that the government’s share should be larger. The adjusted odds of satisfaction were higher among individuals with better health status, those who positively rated equal access and respect to patients in the system, those thinking that the responsibility for health should be equally shared between the individual and the government, and those who tended to trust the government.

Conclusions

This study enriched our understanding of factors that shape the population’s satisfaction with the health care system in different cultural and political environments. We recommend further exploration of public opinion about those system attributes that are not directly linked to patient experiences with care, but might be equally important for explaining the phenomenon of satisfaction.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12913-020-05863-6.

What Is the Affordable Care Act a Case of? Understanding the ACA through the Comparative Method

International comparisons of US health care are common but mostly focus on comparing its performance to peers or asking why the United States remains so far from universal coverage. Here the authors ask how other comparative research could shed light on the unusual politics and structure of US health care and how the US experience could bring more to international conversations about health care and the welfare state. After introducing the concept of casing-asking what the Affordable Care Act (ACA) might be a case of-the authors discuss different "casings" of the ACA: complex legislation, path dependency, demos-constraining institutions, deep social cleavages, segmentalism, or the persistence of the welfare state. Each of these pictures of the ACA has strong support in the US-focused literature. Each also cases the ACA as part of a different experience shared with other countries, with different implications for how to analyze it and what we can learn from it. The final section discusses the implications for selecting cases that might shed light on the US experience and that make the United States look less exceptional and more tractable as an object of research.

Is it unfair for the affluent to be able to purchase "better" healthcare? Existential standards and institutional norms in healthcare attitudes across 28 countries

Existing research has found that individuals often perceive healthcare inequalities as unfair; yet, there is high variation in unfairness perceptions between countries. This raises the question of whether the institutional context of the healthcare system is associated with what people perceive as unfair. Using data from the ISSP study and OECD health expenditure data from 2011/13, we explore whether individual attitudes about the unfairness of healthcare inequality - the ability to purchase "better" healthcare for the affluent - vary systematically with a country's institutional environment: namely, with the prevalence of cost barriers to healthcare access, and with the degree and type of public healthcare financing. Three general findings emerge from the analysis: (1) Higher cost barriers correlate with lower levels of perceived unfairness in healthcare inequality, suggesting those exposed to greater levels of inequality tend to be more accepting of inequality. This finding is consistent with empirical justice theory and the expected relevance of an 'existential' standard of justice, stemming from individuals' proclivities to accept the status quo as just. (2) Further, greater public financing of healthcare correlates with higher perceived unfairness. Drawing on neo-institutionalist theory, this may suggest that greater public financing enshrines access to healthcare as a universal right, and hence provides an ideational framing that delegitimizes unequal opportunities for purchasing better healthcare. (3) Further, higher unfairness perceptions of lower income and educational groups are more strongly associated with greater public financing than those of their respective comparison groups. This may indicate that the normative right to healthcare is of particular importance to the disadvantaged, which could potentially explain the political quiescence on healthcare of lower income and educated persons in societies that lack universal health systems. In sum, this study contributes to the larger debate on the interrelatedness of healthcare institutions and public opinion, and specifically on perceptions of unfairness.

Framing the Opioid Crisis: Do Racial Frames Shape Beliefs of Whites Losing Ground?

CONTEXT

Although research has begun to examine perceptions of being on the losing side of politics, it has been confined to electoral politics. The context of health disparities, and particularly the opioid crisis, offers a case to explore whether frames that emphasize racial disadvantage activate loser perceptions and the political consequences of such beliefs.

METHODS

White survey participants (N = 1,549) were randomized into three groups: a control which saw no news article, or one of two treatment groups which saw a news article about the opioid crisis framed to emphasize either the absolute rates of opioid mortality among whites or the comparative rates of opioid mortality among whites compared to blacks.

FINDINGS

Among control group participants, perceiving oneself a political loser was unrelated to attitudes about addressing opioids, whereas those who perceived whites to be on the losing side of public health had a less empathetic response to the opioid crisis. The comparative frame led to greater beliefs that whites are on the losing side of public health, whereas the absolute frame led to more empathetic policy opinions.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptions that one's racial group has lost ground in the public health context could have political consequences that future research should explore.

Trends in State-Level Opinions toward the Affordable Care Act

CONTEXT

This article argues that the devolution of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to the states contributed to the slow progression of national public support for health care reform.

METHODS

Using small-area estimation techniques, the authors measured quarterly state ACA attitudes on five topics from 2009 to the start of the 2016 presidential election.

FINDINGS

Public support for the ACA increased after gubernatorial announcement of state-based exchanges. However, the adoption of federal or partnership marketplaces had virtually no effect on public opinion of the ACA and, in some cases, even decreased positive perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' analyses point to the complexities in mass preferences toward the ACA and policy feedback more generally. The slow movement of national ACA support was due partly to state-level variations in policy making. The findings suggest that, as time progresses, attitudes in Republican-leaning states with state-based marketplaces will become more positive toward the ACA, presumably as residents begin to experience the positive effects of the law. More broadly, this work highlights the importance of looking at state-level variations in opinions and policies.

Reframing inequality? The health inequalities turn as a dangerous frame shift

Background

Politicians in many countries have embraced the notion that health inequalities derive from socioeconomic inequalities, but European governments have for the most part failed to enact policies that would reduce underlying social inequalities.

Methods

Data are drawn from 84 in-depth interviews with policy-makers in four European countries between 2012 and 2015, qualitative content analysis of recent health inequalities policy documents, and secondary literature on the barriers to implementing evidence-based health inequalities policies.

Results

Institutional and political barriers are important barriers to effective policy. Both policy-making institutions and the ideas and practices associated with neoliberalism reinforce medical-individualist models of health, strengthen actors with material interests opposed to policies that would increase equity, and undermine policy action to tackle the fundamental causes of social (including health) inequalities.

Conclusions

Medicalizing inequality is more appealing to most politicians than tackling income and wage inequality head-on, but it results in framing the problem of social inequality in a way that makes it technically quite difficult to solve. Policy-makers should consider adopting more traditional programs of taxation, redistribution and labor market regulation in order to reduce both health inequalities and the underlying social inequalities.

The United States Leads Other Nations In Differences By Income In Perceptions Of Health And Health Care

We examined income gaps in the period 2011-13 in self-assessments of personal health and health care across thirty-two middle- and high-income countries. While high-income respondents were generally more positive about their health and health care in most countries, the gap between them and low-income respondents was much bigger in some than in others. The United States has among the largest income-related differences in each of the measures we studied, which assessed both respondents' past experiences and their confidence about accessing needed health care in the future. Relatively low levels of moral discomfort over income-based health care disparities despite broad awareness of unmet need indicate more public tolerance for health care inequalities in the United States than elsewhere. Nonetheless, over half of Americans felt that income-based health care inequalities are unfair, and these respondents were significantly more likely than their compatriots to support major health system reform-differences that reflect the country's political divisions. Given the many provisions in the Affordable Care Act that seek to reduce disparities, any replacement would also require attention to disparities or risk taking a step backward in an area where the United States is in sore need of improvement.

US Mayors' and Health Commissioners' Opinions About Health Disparities in Their Cities

OBJECTIVES

To characterize US mayors' and health commissioners' opinions about health disparities in their cities and identify factors associated with these opinions.

METHODS

We conducted a multimodal survey of mayors and health commissioners in fall-winter 2016 (n = 535; response rate = 45.2%). We conducted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Forty-two percent of mayors and 61.1% of health commissioners strongly agreed that health disparities existed in their cities. Thirty percent of mayors and 8.0% of health commissioners believed that city policies could have little or no impact on disparities. Liberal respondents were more likely than were conservative respondents to strongly agree that disparities existed (mayors: odds ratio [OR] = 7.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.22, 16.84; health commissioners: OR = 5.09; 95% CI = 3.07, 8.46). In regression models, beliefs that disparities existed, were avoidable, and were unfair were independently associated with the belief that city policies could have a major impact on disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

Many mayors, and some health commissioners, are unaware of the potential of city policies to reduce health disparities. Ideology is strongly associated with opinions about disparities among these city policymakers. Public Health Implications: Information about health disparities, and policy strategies to reduce them, needs to be more effectively communicated to city policymakers.

Is the Affordable Care Act Cultivating a Cross-Class Constituency? Income, Partisanship, and a Proposal for Tracing the Contingent Nature of Positive Policy Feedback Effects

Social Security and Medicare enjoy strong political coalitions within the mass public because middle-class Americans believe they derive benefits from these programs and stand alongside lower-income beneficiaries in defending them from erosion. By pooling data from nine nationally representative surveys, this article examines whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is cultivating a similar cross-class constituency. The results show that middle-income Americans are less likely than low-income Americans to say the ACA has helped them personally so far. On the other hand, partisanship conditions the relationship between income and beliefs about benefits likely to be derived from the ACA in the long run. In total, the results suggest that cross-class Democratic optimism about long-run benefits may enable the ACA to reap positive beneficiary feedbacks, but a large and bipartisan cross-class constituency appears unlikely. Drawing on these results, this article also makes theoretical contributions to the policy feedback literature by underscoring the need for research on prospections' power in policy feedbacks and proposing a strategy for researchers, policy makers, and public managers to identify where partisanship intervenes in the standard policy feedback logic model, and thereby to better assess how it fragments and conditions positive feedback effects in target populations.

Addressing health inequities in Ontario, Canada: what solutions do the public support?

Background

As public opinion is an important part of the health equity policy agenda, it is important to assess public opinion around potential policy interventions to address health inequities. We report on public opinion in Ontario about health equity interventions that address the social determinants of health. We also examine Ontarians’ support and predictors for targeted health equity interventions versus universal interventions.

Methods

We surveyed 2,006 adult Ontarians through a telephone survey using random digit dialing. Descriptive statistics assessed Ontarians’ support for various health equity solutions, and a multinomial logistic regression model was built to examine predictors of this support across specific targeted and broader health equity interventions focused on nutrition, welfare, and housing.

Results

There appears to be mixed opinions among Ontarians regarding the importance of addressing health inequities and related solutions. Nevertheless, Ontarians were willing to support a wide range of interventions to address health inequities. The three most supported interventions were more subsidized nutritious food for children (89%), encouraging more volunteers in the community (89%), and more healthcare treatment programs (85%). Respondents who attributed health inequities to the plight of the poor were generally more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, than neither type. Political affiliation was a strong predictor of support with expected patterns, with left-leaning voters more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, and right-leaning voters less likely to support both types of interventions.

Conclusions

Findings indicate that the Ontario public is more supportive of targeted health equity interventions, but that attributions of inequities and political affiliation are important predictors of support. The Ontario public may be accepting of messaging around health inequities and the social determinants of health depending on how the message is framed (e.g., plight of the poor vs. privilege of the rich). These findings may be instructive for advocates looking to raise awareness of health inequities.

Path Dependency and the Politics of Socialized Health Care

Rich democracies exhibit vast cross-national and historical variation in the socialization of health care. Yet, cross-national analyses remain relatively rare in the health policy literature, and health care remains relatively neglected in the welfare state literature. We analyze pooled time series models of the public share of total health spending for eighteen rich democracies from 1960 to 2010. Building on path dependency theory, we present a strategy for modeling the relationship between the initial 1960 public share and the current public share. We also examine two contrasting accounts for how the 1960 public share interacts with conventional welfare state predictors: the self-reinforcing hypothesis expecting positive feedbacks and the counteracting hypothesis expecting negative feedbacks. We demonstrate that most of the variation from 1960 to 2010 in the public share can be explained by a country's initial value in 1960. This 1960 value has a large significant effect in models of 1961-2010, and including the 1960 value alters the coefficients of conventional welfare state predictors. To investigate the mechanism whereby prior social policy influences public opinion about current social policy, we use the 2006 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). This analysis confirms that the 1960 values predict individual preferences for government spending on health. Returning to the pooled time series, we demonstrate that the 1960 values interact significantly with several conventional welfare state predictors. Some interactions support the self-reinforcing hypothesis, while others support the counteracting hypothesis. Ultimately, this study illustrates how historical legacies of social policy exert substantial influence on the subsequent politics of social policy.

Egalitarian health policy preference and its related factors in Korea: national representative sample survey

Recently in Korea, the commercialization of health services has come to the fore, and the issue of egalitarianism/universal coverage in health is a matter for debate. This study explored the extent of Korean citizen's preference for egalitarian health policies focusing on the provision of health care service, financing and related factors. The data came from the 2011 Korean General Social Survey (KGSS) and the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). The preference for an egalitarian health policy (dependent variable) was divided into a preference for an egalitarian health services provision (ES) and a willingness to contribute (WC) to it. Each index was linearly regressed with demographic factors, socioeconomic status, ideology, and health-related factors. ES was significantly associated with an individual's egalitarianism and political liberalism, having illness/disability, having no additional private health insurance, and their perception of health insurance coverage. WC was associated with age, sex, household income, education, egalitarianism, and their perception of health insurance coverage. There were evidently different factors between ES and WC, mainly socioeconomic factors. WC was strongly influenced by socioeconomic status, whereas ES seemed to be linked more closely to economic affordability. Moreover, the results showed that Korean citizens prefer ES but do not like WC. These results deserve great attention, and the authorities should keep it in perspective. If the government wants to make a successful attempt to change the healthcare system through public policy, it will need to take public preferences into account.

Personal needs versus national needs: public attitudes regarding health care priorities at the personal and national levels

BACKGROUND

Many stakeholders have little or no confidence in the ability of the public to express their opinions on health policy issues. The claim often arises that lay people prioritize according to their own personal experiences and may lack the broad perspective necessary to understand the needs of the population at large. In order to test this claim empirically, this study compares the public's priorities regarding personal insurance to their priorities regarding allocation of national health resources. Thus, the study should shed light on the extent to which the public's priorities at the national level are a reflection of their priorities at the personal level.

METHODS

A telephone survey was conducted with a representative sample of the Israeli adult population aged 18 and over (n = 1,225). The public's priorities were assessed by asking interviewees to assume that they were the Minister of Health and from this point of view allocate an additional budget among various health areas. Their priorities at the personal level were assessed by asking interviewees to choose preferred items for inclusion in their personal supplementary health insurance.

RESULTS

Over half of the respondents (54%) expressed different personal and national priorities. In multivariable logistic analysis, "population group" was the only variable found to be statistically significant; Jews were 1.8 times more likely than Arabs to give a similar response to both questions. Income level was of borderline significance.

CONCLUSIONS

At least half of the population was able to differentiate between their personal needs and national policy needs. We do not advocate a decision-making process based on polls or referendums. However, we believe that people should be allowed to express their priorities regarding national policy issues, and that decision-makers should consider these as one of the factors used to determine policy decisions.

Just healthcare? The moral failure of single-tier basic healthcare

This article sets out the moral failure of single-tier basic healthcare. Single-tier basic healthcare has been advocated on the grounds that the provision of healthcare should be divorced from ability to pay and unequal access to basic healthcare is morally intolerable. However, single-tier basic healthcare encounters a host of catastrophic moral failings. Given the fact of human pluralism it is impossible to objectively define "basic" healthcare. Attempts to provide single-tier healthcare therefore become political processes in which interest groups compete for control of scarce resources with the most privileged possessing an inherent advantage. The focus on outputs in arguments for single-tier provision neglects the question of justice between individuals when some people provide resources for others without reciprocal benefits. The principle that only healthcare that can be provided to everyone should be provided at all leads to a leveling-down problem in which advocates of single-tier provision must prefer a situation where some individuals are made worse-off without any individual being made better-off compared to plausible multi-tier alternatives. Contemporary single-tier systems require the exclusion of noncitizens, meaning that their universalism is a myth. In the light of these pathologies, it is judged that multi-tier healthcare is morally required.

The role of financial wellbeing, sociopolitical attitude, self-interest, and lifestyle in one's attitude toward social health insurance

BACKGROUND

There has been continuous debate in the United States, Germany, and China about their respective healthcare systems. While these three countries are dealing with their own unique problems, the question of how social a healthcare system should be is a topic in this debate.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined how strongly college students' attitudes toward a social healthcare system relate to ideological orientation and self-interest.

METHODS

We used samples of college students in the People's Republic of China, Germany, and the US, and extracted factors measuring "financial wellbeing," "sociopolitical attitude," "self-interest," and "lifestyle" to explain the "attitude toward social health insurance" (ASHI) construct developed in recent literature (Loh et al. in Eur J Health Econ 13:707-722).

RESULTS

The results of regression analysis showed that sociopolitical attitude/progressivism is positively related to the ASHI, but the degree of association varies considerably from country to country. We also found that a self-interest factor, measured by health status, seems to be inversely related to an individual's ASHI in the US, but not in China or Germany. Individuals with relatively healthy lifestyle choices were less likely to have a favorable ASHI in Germany, but no such relationship was found in China and the US. These results indicate that while some commonalities exist, there are also considerable differences in the structure of ASHI across these three countries.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, the results reported here could help to develop a predictive model that can be utilized to forecast a country's ASHI. Such a predictive model could be used by politicians to gauge the popularity of a healthcare plan that is under consideration in a particular country.

Healthcare Systems in Comparative Perspective: Classification, Convergence, Institutions, Inequalities, and Five Missed Turns

This essay reviews and evaluates recent comparative social science scholarship on healthcare systems. We focus on four of the strongest themes in current research: (1) the development of typologies of healthcare systems, (2) assessment of convergence among healthcare systems, (3) problematization of the shifting boundaries of healthcare systems, and (4) the relationship between healthcare systems and social inequalities. Our discussion seeks to highlight the central debates that animate current scholarship and identify unresolved questions and new opportunities for research. We also identify five currents in contemporary sociology that have not been incorporated as deeply as they might into research on healthcare systems. These five "missed turns" include an emphasis on social relations, culture, postnational theory, institutions, and causal mechanisms. We conclude by highlighting some key challenges for comparative research on healthcare systems.

Fairness and wellness incentives: what is the relevance of the process-outcome distinction?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the commonly drawn distinction between the fairness of incentives targeting behavioral processes (or effort) and those targeting outcomes (or achievement) provide suitable grounds for favoring either approach in healthcare research, policy and practice.

METHODS

Conceptual analysis, literature review.

RESULTS

A categorical distinction between process- and outcome-based incentives is less crisp than it seems. Both processes and outcomes involve targets, and both are subject to differences - across and within socio-economic groups - in circumstance and perspective. Thus, a spectrum view is more appropriate, in which the fairness of incentive programs increases with the extent of control that people have. The effectiveness of incentives is a further relevant consideration, and some available evidence suggests that incentives closer to the outcome-end of the spectrum can be more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple distinctions between processes and outcomes by themselves provide little assurance that programs are effective or fair. Effectiveness can and should be assessed empirically. Assessments of fairness should focus on the extent to which an activity or outcome might be feasible and under an individual's control, not on whether it targets a process or outcome. Rigid uniform targets for all are generally less desirable than those that reward person-specific improvement.

Who deserves health care? The effects of causal attributions and group cues on public attitudes about responsibility for health care costs

This research investigates the impact of cues about ascriptive group characteristics (race, class, gender) and the causes of ill health (health behaviors, inborn biological traits, social systemic factors) on beliefs about who deserves society's help in paying for the costs of medical treatment. Drawing on data from three original vignette experiments embedded in a nationally representative survey of American adults, we find that respondents are reluctant to blame or deny societal support in response to explicit cues about racial attributes--but equally explicit cues about the causal impact of individual behaviors on health have large effects on expressed attitudes. Across all three experiments, a focus on individual behavioral causes of illness is associated with increased support for individual responsibility for health care costs and lower support for government-financed health insurance. Beliefs about social groups and causal attributions are, however, tightly intertwined. We find that when groups suffering ill health are defined in racial, class, or gender terms, Americans differ in their attribution of health disparities to individual behaviors versus biological or systemic factors. Because causal attributions also affect health policy opinions, varying patterns of causal attribution may reinforce group stereotypes and undermine support for universal access to health care.