What Generates Attention to Health in Trade Policy-Making? Lessons From Success in Tobacco Control and Access to Medicines: A Qualitative Study of Australia and the (Comprehensive and Progressive) Trans-Pacific Partnership

CO-Creation and Evaluation of Food Environments to Advance Community Health (COACH)

Introduction

Food environments are a key determinant of food intake and diet-related health. This paper describes the development of an iterative, adaptive, context-specific framework for health-enabling food environments embedded in cocreation theory.

Methods

A 3-stage multimethod framework for the coproduction and prototyping of public health interventions was followed in an iterative manner during the development of the framework. These 3 stages were (1) evidence review, including systematic review, consultation with experts, and observation of current work; (2) codesign of the framework prototype with multiple stakeholders; and (3) coproduction through refinement of the prototype through stakeholder workshops and expert reviews with incorporation of researcher notes and workshop evaluation. We use the term prototype during the development phase and the term framework to report on the final product.

Results

COACH (CO-creation and evaluation of food environments to Advance Community Health) is a process framework that describes what best practice application of cocreation in health-enabling food retail environments should involve. COACH consists of 10 interdependent factors within a 4-phase continuous quality improvement cycle. The 4 phases of the cycle are engagement and governance establishment, communication and policy alignment, codesign and implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.

Conclusions

Utilizing cocreation theory represents an innovative step in research and practice to improve the healthiness of food retail environments. COACH provides a specific, unique, and comprehensive guide to the utilization of cocreation to improve the healthiness of food environments in practice.

Public health advocacy strategies to influence policy agendas: lessons from a narrative review of success in trade policy

BACKGROUND

Despite accumulating evidence of the implications of trade policy for public health, trade and health sectors continue to operate largely in silos. Numerous barriers to advancing health have been identified, including the dominance of a neoliberal paradigm, powerful private sector interests, and constraints associated with policymaking processes. Scholars and policy actors have recommended improved governance practices for trade policy, including: greater transparency and accountability; intersectoral collaboration; the use of health impact assessments; South-South networking; and mechanisms for civil society participation. These policy prescriptions have been generated from specific cases, such as the World Trade Organization's Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health or specific instances of trade-related policymaking at the national level. There has not yet been a comprehensive analysis of what enables the elevation of health goals on trade policy agendas. This narrative review seeks to address this gap by collating and analysing known studies across different levels of policymaking and different health issues.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Health issues that received attention on trade policy agendas included: access to medicines, food nutrition and food security, tobacco control, non-communicable diseases, access to knowledge, and asbestos harm. This has occurred in instances of domestic and regional policymaking, and in bilateral, regional and global trade negotiations, as well as in trade disputes and challenges. We identified four enabling conditions for elevation of health in trade-related policymaking: favourable media attention; leadership by trade and health ministers; public support; and political party support. We identified six strategies successfully used by advocates to influence these conditions: using and translating multiple forms of evidence, acting in coalitions, strategic framing, leveraging exogenous factors, legal strategy, and shifting forums.

CONCLUSION

The analysis demonstrates that while technical evidence is important, political strategy is necessary for elevating health on trade agendas. The analysis provides lessons that can be explored in the wider commercial determinants of health where economic and health interests often collide.

Creating Political Will for Action on Health Equity: Practical Lessons for Public Health Policy Actors

BACKGROUND

Despite growing evidence on the social determinants of health and health equity, political action has not been commensurate. Little is known about how political will operates to enact pro-equity policies or not. This paper examines how political will for pro-health equity policies is created through analysis of public policy in multiple sectors.

METHODS

Eight case studies were undertaken of Australian policies where action was either taken or proposed on health equity or where the policy seemed contrary to such action. Telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with 192 state and non-state participants. Analysis of the cases was done through thematic analysis and triangulated with document analysis.

RESULTS

Our case studies covered: trade agreements, primary healthcare (PHC), work conditions, digital access, urban planning, social welfare and Indigenous health. The extent of political will for pro-equity policies depended on the strength of path dependency, electoral concerns, political philosophy, the strength of economic and biomedical framings, whether elite interests were threatened and the success or otherwise of civil society lobbying.

CONCLUSION

Public health policy actors may create political will through: determining how path dependency that exacerbates health inequities can be broken, working with sympathetic political forces committed to fairness; framing policy options in a way that makes them more likely to be adopted, outlining factors to consider in challenging the interests of elites, and considering the extent to which civil society will work in favour of equitable policies. A shift in norms is required to stress equity and the right to health.

Reducing the Power of the Alcohol Industry in Trade and Investment Agreement Negotiations Through Improved Global Governance of Alcohol Comment on "What Generates Attention to Health in Trade Policy-Making? Lessons From Success in Tobacco Control and Access to Medicines: A Qualitative Study of Australia and the (Comprehensive and Progressive) Trans-Pacific Partnership"

The power of the alcohol industry pervades the global governance of alcohol. The influence of the industry is seen in trade and investment treaty negotiations, operating through direct and indirect means. Curbing the influence of the industry is vital to improving the treatment of health issues generally and in trade and investment policy particularly. The World Health Organization (WHO) has an opportunity to start to rein in the power of the industry with its current work on drafting an 'action plan' for 2022-2030 to implement the Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol. The WHO working paper, however, proposes inadequate controls on alcohol industry influence. The WHO proposes 'dialogue' with the industry and allows the industry to take a role with government in public health labelling of alcohol. The public's health will suffer if the WHO does not take a firmer stand against the industry in the 'action plan.'

Protecting noncommunicable disease prevention policy in trade and investment agreements

Preventing noncommunicable diseases is a global priority, for which the World Health Organization has recommended policies to reduce the consumption of tobacco products, alcohol and unhealthy foods. However, regulation has been strongly opposed by affected industries, who have invoked the provisions of legally binding trade and investment agreements. The aim of this analysis of the legal, economic and public health literature was to present a short primer on the relationship between noncommunicable disease prevention policy and trade and investment agreements to help public health policy-makers safeguard public health policies. The analysis identified opportunities for protecting, and even promoting, public health in trade and investment agreements, including: (i) ensuring exceptions for public health measures are included in agreements; (ii) committing to good regulatory practice that balances transparency and cooperation with the need for governments to limit the influence of vested interests; (iii) ensuring trade and investment agreement preambles acknowledge the importance of public health; (iv) excluding investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms from agreements; and (v) limiting the scope and definition of key provisions on investor protection to reduce the risk of investment disputes. This synthesis of the multidisciplinary literature also provides support for greater strategic and informed engagement between the health and trade policy sectors. In addition, ensuring a high level of health protection in trade and investment agreements requires cooperation between disciplines, engagement with experts in law, economics and public health policy, and fully transparent policy processes and governance structures.

COVID-19, Trade, and Health: This Changes Everything? Comment on "What Generates Attention to Health in Trade Policy-Making? Lessons From Success in Tobacco Control and Access to Medicines: A Qualitative Study of Australia and the (Comprehensive and Progressive) Trans-Pacific Partnership"

Townsend and colleagues highlighted the myriad political forces which fostered attention to health issues during negotiations to establish a new trans-pacific trade deal in Australia (the CP-TPP [Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership], formerly known as TPP). Among the factors they identify, exporter interests and exogenous events helped to generate attention to trade-related concerns about tobacco and access medicines, and limited attention to nutrition and alcohol. These are important considerations as the United Kingdom negotiates a trade deal with the United States in haste, whilst at the same time attempting to manage the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this commentary, I reflect on changing attention to trade and nutrition during the COVID-19 pandemic in light of Townsend and colleagues' analysis. I explore scope for greater attention to nutrition in US-UK trade negotiations, and the challenges created by the vested interests of major UK and US processed food exporters. I further discuss the utility of the theoretical tools employed by Townsend and colleagues for wider debates in the political economy of health.

Expanding Public Health Policy Analysis for Transformative Change: The Importance of Power and Ideas Comment on "What Generates Attention to Health in Trade Policy-Making? Lessons From Success in Tobacco Control and Access to Medicines: A Qualitative Study of Australia and the (Comprehensive and Progressive) Trans-Pacific Partnership"

It is increasingly recognised within public health scholarship that policy change depends on the nature of the power relations surrounding and embedded within decision-making spaces. It is only through sustained shifts in power in all its forms (visible, hidden and invisible) that previously excluded perspectives have influence in policy decisions. Further, consideration of the underlying neoliberal paradigm is essential for understanding how existing power dynamics and relations have emerged and are sustained. In their analysis of political and governance factors, Townsend et al have provided critical insight into future potential strategies for increasing attention to health concerns in trade policy. In this commentary we explore how incorporating theories of power more rigorously into similar political analyses, as well as more explicit critical consideration of the neoliberal political paradigm, can assist in analysing if and how strategies can effectively challenge existing power relations in ways that are necessary for transformative policy change.

Corporate power and the international trade regime preventing progressive policy action on non-communicable diseases: a realist review

Transnational tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food corporations use the international trade regime to prevent policy action on non-communicable diseases (NCDs); i.e. to promote policy 'non-decisions'. Understanding policy non-decisions can be assisted by identifying power operating in relevant decision-making spaces, but trade and health research rarely explicitly engages with theories of power. This realist review aimed to synthesize evidence of different forms and mechanisms of power active in trade and health decision-making spaces to understand better why NCD policy non-decisions persist and the implications for future transformative action. We iteratively developed power-based theories explaining how transnational health-harmful commodity corporations (THCCs) utilize the international trade regime to encourage NCD policy non-decisions. To support theory development, we also developed a conceptual framework for analysing power in public health policymaking. We searched six databases and relevant grey literature and extracted, synthesized and mapped the evidence against the proposed theories. One hundred and four studies were included. Findings were presented for three key forms of power. Evidence indicates THCCs attempt to exercise instrumental power by extensive lobbying often via privileged access to trade and health decision-making spaces. When their legitimacy declines, THCCs have attempted to shift decision-making to more favourable international trade legal venues. THCCs benefit from structural power through the institutionalization of their involvement in health and trade agenda-setting processes. In terms of discursive power, THCCs effectively frame trade and health issues in ways that echo and amplify dominant neoliberal ideas. These processes may further entrench the individualization of NCDs, restrict conceivable policy solutions and perpetuate policymaking norms that privilege economic/trade interests over health. This review identifies different forms and mechanisms of power active in trade and health policy spaces that enable THCCs to prevent progressive action on NCDs. It also points to potential strategies for challenging these power dynamics and relations.

Defending access to medicines in regional trade agreements: lessons from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership - a qualitative study of policy actors' views

Background

The Regional Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) is a mega regional trade agreement signed by fifteen countries on 15 November 2020 after 8 years of negotiation. Signatories include the ten members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus China, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Australia. India was a negotiating party until it withdrew from the negotiations in November 2019. The RCEP negotiations were initially framed as focused on the needs of low income countries. Public health concerns emerged however when draft negotiating chapters were leaked online, revealing pressures on countries to agree to intellectual property and investment measures that could exacerbate issues of access to medicines and seeds, and protecting regulatory space for public health. A concerted Asia Pacific civil society campaign emerged in response to these concerns, and in 2019, media and government reporting suggested that several of these measures had been taken off the table, which was subsequently confirmed in the release of the signed text in November 2020.

Results

This paper examines civil society and health actors’ views of the conditions that successfully contributed to the removal of these measures in RCEP, with a focus on intellectual property and access to medicines. Drawing on twenty semi-structured qualitative interviews with civil society, government and legal and health experts from nine countries participating in the RCEP negotiations, the paper reports a matrix of ten conditions related to actor power, ideas, political context and specific health issues that appeared to support prioritisation of some public health concerns in the RCEP negotiations.

Conclusions

Conditions identified included strong low and middle income country leadership; strong civil society mobilisation, increased technical capacity of civil society and low and middle income negotiators; supportive public health norms; processes that somewhat opened up the negotiations to hear public health views; the use of evidence; domestic support for health issues; and supportive international public health legislation. Lessons from the RCEP can inform prioritisation of public health in future trade agreement negotiations.

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.

Brexit and trade policy: an analysis of the governance of UK trade policy and what it means for health and social justice

BACKGROUND

There is an extensive body of research demonstrating that trade and globalisation can have wide-ranging implications for health. Robust governance is key to ensuring that health, social justice and sustainability are key considerations within trade policy, and that health risks from trade are effectively mitigated and benefits are maximised. The UK's departure from the EU provides a rare opportunity to examine a context where trade governance arrangements are being created anew, and to explore the consequences of governance choices and structures for health and social justice. Despite its importance to public health, there has been no systematic analysis of the implications of UK trade policy governance. We therefore conducted an analysis of the governance of the UK's trade policy from a public health and social justice perspective.

RESULTS

Several arrangements required for good governance appear to have been implemented - information provision, public consultation, accountability to Parliament, and strengthening of civil service capacity. However, our detailed analyses of these pillars of governance identified significant weaknesses in each of these areas.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a new trade policy agenda calls for robust systems of governance. However, our analysis demonstrates that, despite decades of mounting evidence on the health and equity impacts of trade and the importance of strong systems of governance, the UK government has largely ignored this evidence and failed to galvanise the opportunity to include public health and equity considerations and strengthen democratic involvement in trade policy. This underscores the point that the evidence alone will not guarantee that health and justice are prioritised. Rather, we need strong systems of governance everywhere that can help seize the health benefits of international trade and minimise its detrimental impacts. A failure to strengthen governance risks poor policy design and implementation, with unintended and inequitable distribution of harms, and 'on-paper' commitments to health, social justice, and democracy unfulfilled in practice. Although the detailed findings relate to the situation in the UK, the issues raised are, we believe, of wider relevance for those with an interest of governing for health in the area of international trade.

Australia in 2030: what is our path to health for all?

CHAPTER 1: HOW AUSTRALIA IMPROVED HEALTH EQUITY THROUGH ACTION ON THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Do not think that the social determinants of health equity are old hat. In reality, Australia is very far away from addressing the societal level drivers of health inequity. There is little progressive policy that touches on the conditions of daily life that matter for health, and action to redress inequities in power, money and resources is almost non-existent. In this chapter we ask you to pause this reality and come on a fantastic journey where we envisage how COVID-19 was a great disruptor and accelerator of positive progressive action. We offer glimmers of what life could be like if there was committed and real policy action on the social determinants of health equity. It is vital that the health sector assists in convening the multisectoral stakeholders necessary to turn this fantasy into reality. CHAPTER 2: ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CONNECTION TO CULTURE: BUILDING STRONGER INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE WELLBEING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have long maintained that culture (ie, practising, maintaining and reclaiming it) is vital to good health and wellbeing. However, this knowledge and understanding has been dismissed or described as anecdotal or intangible by Western research methods and science. As a result, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture is a poorly acknowledged determinant of health and wellbeing, despite its significant role in shaping individuals, communities and societies. By extension, the cultural determinants of health have been poorly defined until recently. However, an increasing amount of scientific evidence supports what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have always said - that strong culture plays a significant and positive role in improved health and wellbeing. Owing to known gaps in knowledge, we aim to define the cultural determinants of health and describe their relationship with the social determinants of health, to provide a full understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing. We provide examples of evidence on cultural determinants of health and links to improved Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing. We also discuss future research directions that will enable a deeper understanding of the cultural determinants of health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: HEALTHY, LIVEABLE AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: Good city planning is essential for protecting and improving human and planetary health. Until recently, however, collaboration between city planners and the public health sector has languished. We review the evidence on the health benefits of good city planning and propose an agenda for public health advocacy relating to health-promoting city planning for all by 2030. Over the next 10 years, there is an urgent need for public health leaders to collaborate with city planners - to advocate for evidence-informed policy, and to evaluate the health effects of city planning efforts. Importantly, we need integrated planning across and between all levels of government and sectors, to create healthy, liveable and sustainable cities for all. CHAPTER 4: HEALTH PROMOTION IN THE ANTHROPOCENE: THE ECOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Human health is inextricably linked to the health of the natural environment. In this chapter, we focus on ecological determinants of health, including the urgent and critical threats to the natural environment, and opportunities for health promotion arising from the human health co-benefits of actions to protect the health of the planet. We characterise ecological determinants in the Anthropocene and provide a sobering snapshot of planetary health science, particularly the momentous climate change health impacts in Australia. We highlight Australia's position as a major fossil fuel producer and exporter, and a country lacking cohesive and timely emissions reduction policy. We offer a roadmap for action, with four priority directions, and point to a scaffold of guiding approaches - planetary health, Indigenous people's knowledge systems, ecological economics, health co-benefits and climate-resilient development. Our situation requires a paradigm shift, and this demands a recalibration of health promotion education, research and practice in Australia over the coming decade. CHAPTER 5: DISRUPTING THE COMMERCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Our vision for 2030 is an Australian economy that promotes optimal human and planetary health for current and future generations. To achieve this, current patterns of corporate practice and consumption of harmful commodities and services need to change. In this chapter, we suggest ways forward for Australia, focusing on pragmatic actions that can be taken now to redress the power imbalances between corporations and Australian governments and citizens. We begin by exploring how the terms of health policy making must change to protect it from conflicted commercial interests. We also examine how marketing unhealthy products and services can be more effectively regulated, and how healthier business practices can be incentivised. Finally, we make recommendations on how various public health stakeholders can hold corporations to account, to ensure that people come before profits in a healthy and prosperous future Australia. CHAPTER 6: DIGITAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: We live in an age of rapid and exponential technological change. Extraordinary digital advancements and the fusion of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things and quantum computing constitute what is often referred to as the digital revolution or the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0). Reflections on the future of public health and health promotion require thorough consideration of the role of digital technologies and the systems they influence. Just how the digital revolution will unfold is unknown, but it is clear that advancements and integrations of technologies will fundamentally influence our health and wellbeing in the future. The public health response must be proactive, involving many stakeholders, and thoughtfully considered to ensure equitable and ethical applications and use. CHAPTER 7: GOVERNANCE FOR HEALTH AND EQUITY: A VISION FOR OUR FUTURE: Coronavirus disease 2019 has caused many people and communities to take stock on Australia's direction in relation to health, community, jobs, environmental sustainability, income and wealth. A desire for change is in the air. This chapter imagines how changes in the way we govern our lives and what we value as a society could solve many of the issues Australia is facing - most pressingly, the climate crisis and growing economic and health inequities. We present an imagined future for 2030 where governance structures are designed to ensure transparent and fair behaviour from those in power and to increase the involvement of citizens in these decisions, including a constitutional voice for Indigenous peoples. We imagine that these changes were made by measuring social progress in new ways, ensuring taxation for public good, enshrining human rights (including to health) in legislation, and protecting and encouraging an independent media. Measures to overcome the climate crisis were adopted and democratic processes introduced in the provision of housing, education and community development.

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

OBJECTIVE

While there is urgent need for policymaking that prioritises health equity, successful strategies for advancing such an agenda across multiple policy sectors are not well known. This study aims to address this gap by identifying successful strategies to advance a health equity agenda across multiple policy domains.

DESIGN

We conducted in-depth qualitative case studies in three important social determinants of health equity in Australia: employment and social policy (Paid Parental Leave); macroeconomics and trade policy (the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement); and welfare reform (the Northern Territory Emergency Response). The analysis triangulated multiple data sources included 71 semistructured interviews, document analysis and drew on political science theories related to interests, ideas and institutions.

RESULTS

Within and across case studies we observed three key strategies used by policy actors to advance a health equity agenda, with differing levels of success. The first was the use of multiple policy frames to appeal to a wide range of actors beyond health. The second was the formation of broad coalitions beyond the health sector, in particular networking with non-traditional policy allies. The third was the use of strategic forum shopping by policy actors to move the debate into more popular policy forums that were not health focused.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides nuanced strategies for agenda-setting for health equity and points to the need for multiple persuasive issue frames, coalitions with unusual bedfellows, and shopping around for supportive institutions outside the traditional health domain. Use of these nuanced strategies could generate greater ideational, actor and institutional support for prioritising health equity and thus could lead to improved health outcomes.