Glossary: economics and health.

As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increasing focus on how the economy is rebuilt and the impact this will have on population health. Many of the economic policy proposals being discussed have their own vocabulary, which is not always understood in the same way within or between disciplines. This glossary seeks to provide a common language and concise summary of the key economic terminology relevant for policymakers and public health at this time.

What Are the Implications of Applying Equipoise in Planning Citizens Basic Income Pilots in Scotland?

We have been asked to consider the feasibility of piloting a Citizens' Basic Income (CBI): a basic, unconditional, universal, individual, regular payment that would replace aspects of social security and be introduced alongside changes to taxes. Piloting and evaluating a CBI as a Cluster Randomized Control Trial (RCT) raises the question of whether intervention and comparison groups would be in equipoise, and thus whether randomization would be ethical. We believe that most researchers would accept that additional income, or reduced conditions on receiving income would be likely to improve health, especially at lower income levels. However, there are genuine uncertainties about the impacts on other outcomes, and CBI as a mechanism of providing income. There is also less consensus amongst civil servants and politicians about the impacts on health, and substantial disagreement about whether these would outweigh other impacts. We believe that an RCT is ethical because of these uncertainties. We also argue that the principle of equipoise should apply to randomized and non-randomized trials; that randomization is a fairer means of allocating to intervention and comparison groups; and that there is an ethical case for experimentation to generate higher-quality evidence for policymaking that may otherwise do harm.

The public health effects of interventions similar to basic income: a scoping review.

Universal, unconditional basic income is attracting increasing policy and academic interest. Income is a key health determinant, and a basic income could affect health through its effect on other determinants, such as employment. However, there is little evidence of its potential effects on public health, because no studies of interventions which meet the definition of basic income have been done. However, there is evidence from studies of interventions with similarities to basic income. Therefore, we aimed to identify these studies and to consider what can be learned from them about the potential effects of such interventions on health and socioeconomic outcomes. We did a systematic scoping review of basic income-like interventions, searching eight bibliographic and eight specialist databases from inception to July, 2019, with extensive hand searching. We included publications in English of quantitative and qualitative studies done in upper-middle-income or high-income countries, of universal, permanent, or subsistence-level interventions providing unconditional payments to individuals or families. We sought to identify the range of outcomes reported by relevant studies, and report health, education, employment, and social outcomes. We extracted and tabulated relevant data and narratively reported effects by intervention and outcome. We identified 27 studies of nine heterogeneous interventions, some universal and permanent, and many evaluated using randomised controlled trials or robust quasi-experimental methods. Evidence on health effects was mixed, with strong positive effects on some outcomes, such as birthweight and mental health, but no effect on others. Employment effects were inconsistent, although mostly small for men and larger for women with young children. There was evidence of spill-over effects in studies measuring effects on large populations. In conclusion, little evidence exists of large reductions in employment, and some evidence suggests positive effects on some other outcomes, including health outcomes. Evidence for macro-level effects is scarce. Quasi-experimental and dynamic modelling approaches are well placed to investigate such effects.

Impact of Political Economy on Population Health: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

Background. Although there is a large literature examining the relationship between a wide range of political economy exposures and health outcomes, the extent to which the different aspects of political economy influence health, and through which mechanisms and in what contexts, is only partially understood. The areas in which there are few high-quality studies are also unclear. Objectives. To systematically review the literature describing the impact of political economy on population health. Search Methods. We undertook a systematic review of reviews, searching MEDLINE, Embase, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ProQuest Public Health, Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, EconLit, SocINDEX, Web of Science, and the gray literature via Google Scholar. Selection Criteria. We included studies that were a review of the literature. Relevant exposures were differences or changes in policy, law, or rules; economic conditions; institutions or social structures; or politics, power, or conflict. Relevant outcomes were any overall measure of population health such as self-assessed health, mortality, life expectancy, survival, morbidity, well-being, illness, ill health, and life span. Two authors independently reviewed all citations for relevance. Data Collection and Analysis. We undertook critical appraisal of all included reviews by using modified Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria and then synthesized narratively giving greater weight to the higher-quality reviews. Main Results. From 4912 citations, we included 58 reviews. Both the quality of the reviews and the underlying studies within the reviews were variable. Social democratic welfare states, higher public spending, fair trade policies, extensions to compulsory education provision, microfinance initiatives in low-income countries, health and safety policy, improved access to health care, and high-quality affordable housing have positive impacts on population health. Neoliberal restructuring seems to be associated with increased health inequalities and higher income inequality with lower self-rated health and higher mortality. Authors' Conclusions. Politics, economics, and public policy are important determinants of population health. Countries with social democratic regimes, higher public spending, and lower income inequalities have populations with better health. There are substantial gaps in the synthesized evidence on the relationship between political economy and health, and there is a need for higher-quality reviews and empirical studies in this area. However, there is sufficient evidence in this review, if applied through policy and practice, to have marked beneficial health impacts. Public Health Implications. Policymakers should be aware that social democratic welfare state types, countries that spend more on public services, and countries with lower income inequalities have better self-rated health and lower mortality. Research funders and researchers should be aware that there remain substantial gaps in the available evidence base. One such area concerns the interrelationship between governance, polities, power, macroeconomic policy, public policy, and population health, including how these aspects of political economy generate social class processes and forms of discrimination that have a differential impact across social groups. This includes the influence of patterns of ownership (of land and capital) and tax policies. For some areas, there are many lower-quality reviews, which leave uncertainties in the relationship between political economy and population health, and a high-quality review is needed. There are also areas in which the available reviews have identified primary research gaps such as the impact of changes to housing policy, availability, and tenure.