Increasing compliance with international pandemic law: international relations and new global health agreements.

Across multiple pandemics, global health governance institutions have struggled to secure the compliance of states with international legal and political commitments, ranging from data sharing to observing WHO guidance to sharing vaccines. In response, governments are negotiating a new pandemic treaty and revising the International Health Regulations. Achieving compliance remains challenging, but international relations and international law research in areas outside of health offers insights. This Health Policy analyses international relations research on the reasons why states comply with international law, even in the absence of sanctions. Drawing on human rights, trade, finance, tobacco, and environmental law, we categorise compliance mechanisms as police patrol, fire alarm, or community organiser models. We show that, to date, current and proposed global health law incorporates only a few of the mechanisms that have shown to be effective in other areas. We offer six specific, politically feasible mechanisms for new international agreements that, together, could create compliance pressures to shift state behaviour.

Social policy as an integral component of pandemic response: Learning from COVID-19 in Brazil, Germany, India and the United States.

It is easy but mistaken to think that public health emergency measures and social policy can be separated. This paper compares the experiences of Brazil, Germany, India and the United States during their 2020 responses to the COVID-19 pandemic to show that social policies such as unemployment insurance, flat payments and short-time work are crucial to the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as well as to their political sustainability. Broadly, public health measures that constrain economic activity will only be effective and sustainable if paired with social policy measures that enable people to comply without sacrificing their livelihoods and economic wellbeing. Tough public health policies and generous social policies taken together proved a success in Germany. Generous social policies uncoupled from strong public health interventions, in Brazil and the US during the summer of 2020, enabled lockdown compliance but failed to halt the pandemic, while tough public health measures without social policy support rapidly collapsed in India. In the COVID-19 and future pandemics, public health theory and practice should recognise the importance of social policy to the immediate effectiveness of public health policy as well as to the long-term social and economic impact of pandemics.

Increasing Access to Oral Anticancer Medicines in Middle-Income Countries: A Case Study of Private Health Insurance Coverage in Brazil.

The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 60% of the world's new annual cancer cases occur in Asia, Africa, and Central and South America, and that 70% of cancer deaths occur in these regions. Although oral chemotherapy is a promising intervention for cancer treatment, given its high cost, it is usually unavailable in middle-income countries. In 2013, after strong lobbying from civil society, Brazil's Congress passed legislation mandating that all private health insurance companies provide access to oral antineoplastic treatment. The decision to scale up the provision of oral chemotherapy was a watershed event in the regulation of private health insurance in Brazil. Until then, private insurers, which cover 25% of the population, were exempted from the provision of pharmaceutical drugs for home care treatments. This article explores the political process involved in regulating the provision of oral chemotherapy medicines by private health insurers. Elements of this successful advocacy case included investment in strategic communication, specialized knowledge of regulatory policy, and the ability to act via democratic channels of political representation. In turn, the receptiveness of government branches such as the Congress and regulating bodies, as well as the Cancer Awareness Month campaign, opened a window of opportunity. However, prospects for expanded access to such medicines in the public health system are bleak in the short term because of the ongoing political and economic crisis.

Allocation of authority in European health policy.

Although many study the effects of different allocations of health policy authority, few ask why countries assign responsibility over different policies as they do. We test two broad theories: fiscal federalism, which predicts rational governments will concentrate information-intensive operations at lower levels, and redistributive and regulatory functions at higher levels; and "politicized federalism", which suggests a combination of systematic and historically idiosyncratic political variables interfere with efficient allocation of authority. Drawing on the WHO Health in Transition country profiles, we present new data on the allocation of responsibility for key health care policy tasks (implementation, provision, finance, regulation, and framework legislation) and policy areas (primary, secondary and tertiary care, public health and pharmaceuticals) in the 27 EU member states and Switzerland. We use a Bayesian multinomial mixed logit model to analyze how different countries arrive at different allocations of authority over each task and area of health policy, and find the allocation of powers broadly follows fiscal federalism. Responsibility for pharmaceuticals, framework legislation, and most finance lodges at the highest levels of government, acute and primary care in the regions, and provision at the local and regional levels. Where allocation does not follow fiscal federalism, it appears to reflect ethnic divisions, the population of states and regions, the presence of mountainous terrain, and the timing of region creation.