Equity of primary care service delivery for low income "sicker" adults across 10 OECD countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant investments to support primary care internationally, income-based inequities in access to quality health care are present in many high-income countries. This study aims to determine whether low- and middle-income groups are more likely to report poor quality of primary care (PC) than high-income groups cross-nationally. METHODS: The 2011 Commonwealth Fund Telephone Survey of Sicker Adults is a cross-sectional study across eleven countries. Respondents were recruited from randomly selected households. We used data from surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We identified all questions relating to primary care performance, and categorized these into five dimensions: 1) access to care, 2) coordination 3) patient-centered care, and 4) technical quality of care. We used logistic regression with low and middle-income as the comparison groups and high-income as the referent. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand two hundred sixty-two respondents provided income data. Countries varied considerably in their extent of income disparity. Overall, 24.7% were categorized as low- and 13.9% as high-income. The odds of reporting poor access to care were higher for low- and middle-income than high-income respondents in Canada, New Zealand and the US. Similar results were found for Sweden and Norway on coordination; the opposite trend favoring the low- and middle-income groups was found in New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States. The odds of reporting poor patient-centered care were higher for low-income than high-income respondents in the Netherlands, Norway, and the US; in Australia, this was true for low- and middle-income respondents. On technical quality of care, the odds of reporting poor care were higher for the low- and middle-income comparisons in Canada and Norway; in Germany, the odds were higher for low-income respondents only. The odds of reporting poor technical quality of care were higher for high-income than low-income respondents in the Netherlands. CONCLUSION: Inequities in quality PC for low and middle income groups exist on at least one dimension in all countries, including some that in theory provide universal access. More research is needed to fully understand equity in the PC sector.

Globalization and the health of Canadians: 'Having a job is the most important thing'.

BACKGROUND: Globalization describes processes of greater integration of the world economy through increased flows of goods, services, capital and people. Globalization has undergone significant transformation since the 1970s, entrenching neoliberal economics as the dominant model of global market integration. Although this transformation has generated some health gains, since the 1990s it has also increased health disparities. METHODS: As part of a larger project examining how contemporary globalization was affecting the health of Canadians, we undertook semi-structured interviews with 147 families living in low-income neighbourhoods in Canada's three largest cities (Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver). Many of the families were recent immigrants, which was another focus of the study. Drawing on research syntheses undertaken by the Globalization Knowledge Network of the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health, we examined respondents' experiences of three globalization-related pathways known to influence health: labour markets (and the rise of precarious employment), housing markets (speculative investments and affordability) and social protection measures (changes in scope and redistributive aspects of social spending and taxation). Interviews took place between April 2009 and November 2011. RESULTS: Families experienced an erosion of labour markets (employment) attributed to outsourcing, discrimination in employment experienced by new immigrants, increased precarious employment, and high levels of stress and poor mental health; costly and poor quality housing, especially for new immigrants; and, despite evidence of declining social protection spending, appreciation for state-provided benefits, notably for new immigrants arriving as refugees. Job insecurity was the greatest worry for respondents and their families. Questions concerning the impact of these experiences on health and living standards produced mixed results, with a majority expressing greater difficulty 'making ends meet,' some experiencing deterioration in health and yet many also reporting improved living standards. We speculate on reasons for these counter-intuitive results. CONCLUSIONS: Current trends in the three globalization-related pathways in Canada are likely to worsen the health of families similar to those who participated in our study.

Bringing (domestic) politics back in: global and local influences on health equity.

The Lancet-University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for health correctly concluded that: 'with globalization, health inequity increasingly results from transnational activities that involve actors with different interests and degrees of power'. At the same time, taking up that Commission's focus on political determinants of health and 'power asymmetries' requires recognizing the interplay of globalization with domestic politics, and the limits of global influences as explanations for policies that affect health inequalities. I make this case using three examples - trade policy, climate change policy, and the domestic politics of poverty reduction and social policy - and a concluding observation about the 2015 UK election.

Can health equity survive epidemiology? Standards of proof and social determinants of health.

OBJECTIVE: This article examines how epidemiological evidence is and should be used in the context of increasing concern for health equity and for social determinants of health. METHOD: A research literature on use of scientific evidence of "environmental risks" is outlined, and key issues compared with those that arise with respect to social determinants of health. RESULTS: The issue sets are very similar. Both involve the choice of a standard of proof, and the corollary need to make value judgments about how to address uncertainty in the context of "the inevitability of being wrong," at least some of the time, and to consider evidence from multiple kinds of research design. The nature of such value judgments and the need for methodological pluralism are incompletely understood. CONCLUSION: Responsible policy analysis and interpretation of scientific evidence require explicit consideration of the ethical issues involved in choosing a standard of proof. Because of the stakes involved, such choices often become contested political terrain. Comparative research on how those choices are made will be valuable.

Complementarities or contradictions? Scoping the health dimensions of "flexicurity" labor market policies.

Flexicurity, or the integration of labor market flexibility with social security and active labor market policies, has figured prominently in economic and social policy discussions in Europe since the mid-1990s. Such policies are designed to transcend traditional labor-capital conflicts and to form a mutually supportive nexus of flexibility and security within a climate of intensified competition and rapid technological change. International bodies have marketed flexicurity as an innovative win-win strategy for employers and workers alike, commonly citing Denmark and The Netherlands as exemplars of best practice. In this article, we apply a social determinants of health framework to conduct a scoping review of the academic and gray literature to: (a) better understand the empirical associations between flexicurity practices and population health in Denmark and (b) assess the relevance and feasibility of implementing such policies to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Ontario, Canada. Based on 39 studies meeting our full inclusion criteria, preliminary findings suggest that flexicurity is limited as a potential health promotion strategy in Ontario, offers more risks to workers' health than benefits, and requires the strengthening of other social protections before it could be realistically implemented within a Canadian context.

Downing the Master's Tools? New Research Strategies to Address Social Determinants of Health Inequalities.

A dramatic increase in the volume of research literature referencing social determinants of health (SDH) since the report of the World Health Organization Commission on the topic in 2008 has not been matched by expansion of policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities by way of SDH. This article argues that familiar hierarchies of evidence that privilege clinical epidemiology as used in evidence-based medicine are inappropriate to address SDH. They misunderstand both the range of relevant evidence and the value-based nature of standards of proof. A richer conceptual armamentarium is available; it includes several applications of the concepts of epidemiological worlds and the lifecourse, which are explained in the article. A more appropriate evidentiary approach to SDH and health inequalities requires "downing the master's tools," to adapt Audre Lorde's phrase, and instead applying a multidisciplinary approach to assessing the evidence that adequately reflects the complexity of the relevant causal pathways. Doing so is made more difficult by the power structures that shape research priorities, yet it is essential.

The COVID-19 Pandemic as a Tipping Point: What Future for the Right to Health?

"Building back better" post-pandemic, as advocated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, could advance the realization of health as a human right. However, the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely to represent a tipping point into a new and even more unequal normal, nationally and internationally, that represents a hostile environment for building back better. This paper begins with a brief explanation of the tipping point concept. It goes on to describe the mechanisms by which the pandemic and many responses to it have increased inequality, and then identifies three political dynamics that are inimical to realizing health as a human right even in formal democracies, two of them material (related to the unequal distribution of resources within societies and in the global economy) and one ideational (the continued hegemony of neoliberal ideas about the proper limits of public policy). Observations about the unequal future and what it means for health conclude the paper.

Global health and national borders: the ethics of foreign aid in a time of financial crisis.

BACKGROUND: The governments and citizens of the developed nations are increasingly called upon to contribute financially to health initiatives outside their borders. Although international development assistance for health has grown rapidly over the last two decades, austerity measures related to the 2008 and 2011 global financial crises may impact negatively on aid expenditures. The competition between national priorities and foreign aid commitments raises important ethical questions for donor nations. This paper aims to foster individual reflection and public debate on donor responsibilities for global health. METHODS: We undertook a critical review of contemporary accounts of justice. We selected theories that: (i) articulate important and widely held moral intuitions; (ii) have had extensive impact on debates about global justice; (iii) represent diverse approaches to moral reasoning; and (iv) present distinct stances on the normative importance of national borders. Due to space limitations we limit the discussion to four frameworks. RESULTS: Consequentialist, relational, human rights, and social contract approaches were considered. Responsibilities to provide international assistance were seen as significant by all four theories and place limits on the scope of acceptable national autonomy. Among the range of potential aid foci, interventions for health enjoyed consistent prominence. The four theories concur that there are important ethical responsibilities to support initiatives to improve the health of the worst off worldwide, but offer different rationales for intervention and suggest different implicit limits on responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant theoretical disagreements, four influential accounts of justice offer important reasons to support many current initiatives to promote global health. Ethical argumentation can complement pragmatic reasons to support global health interventions and provide an important foundation to strengthen collective action.

The growing impact of globalization for health and public health practice.

In recent decades, public health policy and practice have been increasingly challenged by globalization, even as global financing for health has increased dramatically. This article discusses globalization and its health challenges from a vantage of political science, emphasizing increased global flows (of pathogens, information, trade, finance, and people) as driving, and driven by, global market integration. This integration requires a shift in public health thinking from a singular focus on international health (the higher disease burden in poor countries) to a more nuanced analysis of global health (in which health risks in both poor and rich countries are seen as having inherently global causes and consequences). Several globalization-related pathways to health exist, two key ones of which are described: globalized diseases and economic vulnerabilities. The article concludes with a call for national governments, especially those of wealthier nations, to take greater account of global health and its social determinants in all their foreign policies.