Political parties and mortality: The role of social status and personal responsibility.

Previous research findings across a variety of nations show that affiliation with the conservative party is associated with greater longevity; however, it is thus far unclear what characteristics contribute to this relationship. We examine the political party/mortality relationship in the United States context. The goal of this paper is two-fold: first, we seek to replicate the mortality difference between Republicans and Democrats in two samples, controlling for demographic confounders. Second, we attempt to isolate and test two potential contributors to the relationship between political party affiliation and mortality: (1) socioeconomic status and (2) dispositional traits reflecting a personal responsibility ethos, as described by the Republican party. Graduate and sibling cohorts from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study were used to estimate mortality risk from 2004 to 2014. In separate Cox proportional hazards models controlling for age and sex, we adjusted first for markers of socioeconomic status (such as wealth and education), then for dispositional traits (such as conscientiousness and active coping), and finally for both socioeconomic status and dispositional traits together. Clogg's method was used to test the statistical significance of attenuation in hazard ratios for each model. In both cohorts, Republicans exhibited lower mortality risk compared to Democrats (Hazard Ratios = 0.79 and 0.73 in graduate and sibling cohorts, respectively [p < 0.05]). This relationship was explained, in part, by socioeconomic status and traits reflecting personal responsibility. Together, socioeconomic factors and dispositional traits account for about 52% (graduates) and 44% (siblings) of Republicans' survival advantage. This study suggests that mortality differences between political parties in the US may be linked to structural and individual determinants of health. These findings highlight the need for better understanding of political party divides in mortality rates.

At the Roots of The World Health Organization's Challenges: Politics and Regionalization.

The World Health Organization's (WHO's) leadership challenges can be traced to its first decades of existence. Central to its governance and practice is regionalization: the division of its member countries into regions, each representing 1 geographical or cultural area. The particular composition of each region has varied over time-reflecting political divisions and especially decolonization. Currently, the 194 member countries belong to 6 regions: the Americas (35 countries), Europe (53 countries), the Eastern Mediterranean (21 countries), South-East Asia (11 countries), the Western Pacific (27 countries), and Africa (47 countries). The regions have considerable autonomy with their own leadership, budget, and priorities. This regional organization has been controversial since its beginnings in the first days of WHO, when representatives of the European countries believed that each country should have a direct relationship with the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, whereas others (especially the United States) argued in favor of the regionalization plan. Over time, regional directors have inevitably challenged the WHO directors-general over their degree of autonomy, responsibilities and duties, budgets, and national composition; similar tensions have occurred within regions. This article traces the historical roots of these challenges.

The World Health Organization and the transition from "international" to "global" public health.

The term "global health" is rapidly replacing the older terminology of "international health." We describe the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in both international and global health and in the transition from one to the other. We suggest that the term "global health" emerged as part of larger political and historical processes, in which WHO found its dominant role challenged and began to reposition itself within a shifting set of power alliances. Between 1948 and 1998, WHO moved from being the unquestioned leader of international health to being an organization in crisis, facing budget shortfalls and diminished status, especially given the growing influence of new and powerful players. We argue that WHO began to refashion itself as the coordinator, strategic planner, and leader of global health initiatives as a strategy of survival in response to this transformed international political context.

The unfulfilled promise of public health: déjà vu all over again.

Many complain about public health's weak infrastructure and poor capacity to respond to threats of bioterrorism. Such complaints are but the anxiety-heightened expression of a periodic rediscovery of the deficiencies and unfulfilled promise of U.S. public health. An overview of more than two centuries suggests that where we are now with public health has been shaped by our earlier, limited, and crisis-focused responses to changing disease threats. We have failed to sustain progress in any coherent manner. If we do not wish to repeat past mistakes, we should learn lessons from the past to guide us in the future.