Why is health improvement policy so difficult to secure?

Many governments seek to improve population health, and some seek to reduce health inequalities. Yet, there remains a large gap between their policy statements and actual outcomes. Perennial questions in public health research include: why is this gap so large, why does it endure, and what can be done to close it? This essay uses political science and policy studies insights to address these questions, focusing on the distinctive issues that relate to (1) broad aims like 'prevention', (2) specific strategies for health improvement, or (3) new events. On the one hand, the idea of 'prevention' has widespread appeal, when governments think they can save money or reduce inequalities by preventing problems happening or worsening. While health protection seeks to inoculate populations against communicable diseases, health improvement strategies, including 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP), primarily address non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Further, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlights the unequal spread of ill health, showing that preventive health ideas should be at the core of policy. On the other hand, there is a large gap between rhetorical and substantive commitment to prevention, a continuous HiAP implementation gap, and a tendency for COVID-19 health protection to overshadow health improvement. Explaining each problem clearly helps to identify the factors that generally undermine prevention policies and those specific to more detailed strategies like HiAP or events like COVID-19. We do not prioritise leadership or 'political will' as the policymaking problem. Instead, we identify the systemic factors that apply to even the most sincere, competent, and energetic policymakers. Health improvement policy is typically undermined by a lack of: clarity about what prevention means in practice; congruity between the prevention agenda (emphasising the need for major change to policy and policymaking) and routine government business; and, capacity to overcome obstacles to policy change.

Policy design for territorial equity in multi-level and multi-sectoral political systems: Comparing health and education strategies.

The EU has many plans to foster equity and spatial justice. However, each has separate reference points, and it is difficult to find an overall vision. To demonstrate, we analyse two sectoral strategies to identify their implications for spatial justice strategies. Education focuses on early investment and public service reform. Health prioritises intersectoral action to address the 'social determinants' beyond the control of health services. Both warn against equating territorial cohesion or spatial justice with equal access to public services. These findings could inform European Commission strategy, but it tends to respond with renewed rhetoric rather than reconsidering its approach.

La UE tiene muchos planes para fomentar la equidad y la justicia espacial. Sin embargo, cada uno tiene puntos de referencia distintos, y es difícil encontrar una visión global. Para demostrarlo, este estudio analizó dos estrategias sectoriales para identificar sus implicaciones en las estrategias de justicia espacial. La educación se centra en la inversión temprana y la reforma de los servicios públicos. La salud prioriza las acciones intersectoriales para abordar los 'determinantes sociales' más allá del control de los servicios sanitarios. Ambos sectores advierten del peligro de equiparar la cohesión territorial o la justicia espacial con la igualdad de acceso a los servicios públicos. Estos hallazgos podrían informar la estrategia de la Comisión Europea, pero ésta tiende a responder con una retórica renovada en lugar de reconsiderar su enfoque.

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies.

Background: 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the 'social determinants' of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways.   Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

The politics of institutionalizing preventive health.

Prevention is an attractive idea to policymakers in theory, particularly in health where the burden of spending and care is increasingly taken up by complex and chronic conditions associated with lifestyle choices. However, prevention in general, and preventive health in particular, has proven hard to implement in practice. In this paper, we look to one tangible legacy of the recent rise of the prevention agenda: agencies with responsibility for preventive health policy. We ask how this form of institutionalizing preventive health happens in practice, and what consequences it has for the advancement of the prevention agenda. We draw on qualitative data to compare the trajectories of newly formed agencies in Australia, New Zealand and England. We find that building and maintaining legitimacy for such agencies may come at the expense of quick progress or radical action in service of the prevention agenda.