What Enables and Constrains the Inclusion of the Social Determinants of Health Inequities in Government Policy Agendas? A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of evidence gathering and calls for action, few countries have systematically attenuated health inequities (HI) through action on the social determinants of health (SDH). This is at least partly because doing so presents a significant political and policy challenge. This paper explores this challenge through a review of the empirical literature, asking: what factors have enabled and constrained the inclusion of the social determinants of health inequities (SDHI) in government policy agendas? METHODS: A narrative review method was adopted involving three steps: first, drawing upon political science theories on agenda-setting, an integrated theoretical framework was developed to guide the review; second, a systematic search of scholarly databases for relevant literature; and third, qualitative analysis of the data and thematic synthesis of the results. Studies were included if they were empirical, met specified quality criteria, and identified factors that enabled or constrained the inclusion of the SDHI in government policy agendas. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies were included in the final synthesis, with studies spanning a number of country-contexts and jurisdictional settings, and employing a diversity of theoretical frameworks. Influential factors included the ways in which the SDHI were framed in public, media and political discourse; emerging data and evidence describing health inequalities; limited supporting evidence and misalignment of proposed solutions with existing policy and institutional arrangements; institutionalised norms and ideologies (ie, belief systems) that are antithetical to a SDH approach including neoliberalism, the medicalisation of health and racism; civil society mobilization; leadership; and changes in government. CONCLUSION: A complex set of interrelated, context-dependent and dynamic factors influence the inclusion or neglect of the SDHI in government policy agendas. It is better to think about these factors as increasing (or decreasing) the 'probability' of health equity reaching a government agenda, rather than in terms of 'necessity' or 'sufficiency.' Understanding these factors may help advocates develop strategies for generating political priority for attenuating HI in the future.

Are changes in Australian national primary healthcare policy likely to promote or impede equity of access? A narrative review.

Significant changes have occurred in Australia's national primary healthcare (PHC) policy over the last decade, but little assessment has been made of implications for equity. This research aimed to identify key recent changes in national PHC policy and assess implications for equity of access to PHC. Academic literature was reviewed to identify issues affecting equity of access in national PHC policy, and grey literature was also reviewed to identify significant policy changes during 2005-16 with implications for equitable access. Equity implications of four areas of policy change, set against the existing Medicare system, were assessed. It was found that Medicare supports equitable access to general practice, but there is a risk of reduced equity under current policy settings. Four changes in PHC policy were selected as having particular implications for equity of access and these were assessed as follows: increased involvement of private health insurance presents risks for equity; equity implications of new models of coordinated care are unclear; and regional primary health organisations and current policy on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health have potential equity benefits, but these will depend on further implementation.

Generating political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity prevention: an Australian case study.

Effective obesity prevention requires a synergistic mix of population-level interventions including a strong role for government and the regulation of the marketing, labelling, content and pricing of energy-dense foods and beverages. In this paper we adopt the agenda of the Australian Federal Government (AFG) as a case study to understand the factors generating or hindering political priority for such 'regulatory interventions' between 1990 and 2011. Using a theoretically-guided process tracing method we undertook documentary analysis and conducted 27 interviews with a diversity of actors involved in obesity politics. The analysis was structured by a theoretical framework comprising four dimensions: the power of actors involved; the ideas the actors deploy to interpret and portray the issue; the institutional and political context; and issue characteristics. Despite two periods of sustained political attention, political priority for regulatory interventions did not emerge and was hindered by factors from all four dimensions. Within the public health community, limited cohesion among experts and advocacy groups hampered technical responses and collective action efforts. An initial focus on children (child obesity), framing the determinants of obesity as 'obesogenic environments', and the deployment of 'protecting kids', 'industry demonization' and 'economic costs' frames generated political attention. Institutional norms within government effectively selected out regulatory interventions from consideration. The 'productive power' and activities of the food and advertising industries presented formidable barriers, buttressed by a libertarian/neolibertarian rhetoric emphasizing individual responsibility, a negative view of freedom (as free from 'nanny-state' intervention) and the idea that regulation imposes an unacceptable cost on business. Issue complexity, the absence of a supportive evidence base and a strict 'evidence-based' policy-making approach were used as rationales to defer political priority. Overcoming these challenges may be important to future collective action efforts attempting to generate and sustain political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity.

The changing role of health-oriented international organizations and nongovernmental organizations.

Apart from governments, there are many other actors active in the health policy arena, including a wide array of international organizations (IOs), public-private partnerships and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that state as their main mission to improve the health of (low-income) populations of low-income countries. Despite the steady rise in numbers and prominence of NGOs, however, there is lack of empirical knowledge about their functioning in the international policy arena, and most studies focus on the larger organizations. This has also caused a somewhat narrow focus of theoretical studies. Some scholars applied the 'principal-agent' theory to study the origins of IOs, for example, other focus on changing power relations. Most of those studies implicitly assume that IOs, public-private partnerships and large NGOs act as unified and rational actors, ignoring internal fragmentation and external pressure to change directions. We assert that the classic analytical instruments for understanding the shaping and outcome of public policy: ideas, interests and institutions apply well to the study of IOs. As we will show, changing ideas about the proper role of state and non-state actors, changing positions and activities of major stakeholders in the (international) health policy arena, and shifts in political institutions that channel the voice of diverging interests resulted in (and reflected) the changing positions of the health-oriented organizations-and also affect their future outlook. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Will the next generation of preferential trade and investment agreements undermine prevention of noncommunicable diseases? A prospective policy analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is one of a new generation of 'deep' preferential trade and investment agreements that will extend many of the provisions seen in previous agreements. This paper presents a prospective policy analysis of the likely text of the TPPA, with reference to nutrition policy space. Specifically, we analyse how the TPPA may constrain governments' policy space to implement the 'policy options for promoting a healthy diet' in the World Health Organization's Global Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs) 2013-2020. This policy analysis suggests that if certain binding commitments are made under the TPPA, they could constrain the ability of governments to protect nutrition policy from the influence of vested interests, reduce the range of interventions available to actively discourage consumption of less healthy food (and to promote healthy food) and limit governments' capacity to implement these interventions, and reduce resources available for nutrition education initiatives. There is scope to protect policy space by including specific exclusions and/or exceptions during negotiation of trade and investment agreements like the TPPA, and by strengthening global health frameworks for nutrition to enable them to be used as reference during disputes in trade fora.

Trade and investment liberalization and Asia's noncommunicable disease epidemic: a synthesis of data and existing literature.

BACKGROUND: Trade and investment liberalization (trade liberalization) can promote or harm health. Undoubtedly it has contributed, although unevenly, to Asia's social and economic development over recent decades with resultant gains in life expectancy and living standards. In the absence of public health protections, however, it is also a significant upstream driver of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) including cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes through facilitating increased consumption of the 'risk commodities' tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed foods, and by constraining access to NCD medicines. In this paper we describe the NCD burden in Asian countries, trends in risk commodity consumption and the processes by which trade liberalization has occurred in the region and contributed to these trends. We further establish pressing questions for future research on strengthening regulatory capacity to address trade liberalization impacts on risk commodity consumption and health. METHODS: A semi-structured search of scholarly databases, institutional websites and internet sources for academic and grey literature. Data for descriptive statistics were sourced from Euromonitor International, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the World Trade Organization. RESULTS: Consumption of tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed foods was prevalent in the region and increasing in many countries. We find that trade liberalization can facilitate increased trade in goods, services and investments in ways that can promote risk commodity consumption, as well as constrain the available resources and capacities of governments to enact policies and programmes to mitigate such consumption. Intellectual property provisions of trade agreements may also constrain access to NCD medicines. Successive layers of the evolving global and regional trade regimes including structural adjustment, multilateral trade agreements, and preferential trade agreements have enabled transnational corporations that manufacture, market and distribute risk commodities to increasingly penetrate and promote consumption in Asian markets. CONCLUSIONS: Trade liberalization is a significant driver of the NCD epidemic in Asia. Increased participation in trade agreements requires countries to strengthen regulatory capacity to ensure adequate protections for public health. How best to achieve this through multilateral, regional and unilateral actions is a pressing question for ongoing research.

A new generation of trade policy: potential risks to diet-related health from the trans pacific partnership agreement.

Trade poses risks and opportunities to public health nutrition. This paper discusses the potential food-related public health risks of a radical new kind of trade agreement: the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP). Under negotiation since 2010, the TPP involves Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the USA, and Vietnam. Here, we review the international evidence on the relationships between trade agreements and diet-related health and, where available, documents and leaked text from the TPP negotiations. Similar to other recent bilateral or regional trade agreements, we find that the TPP would propose tariffs reductions, foreign investment liberalisation and intellectual property protection that extend beyond provisions in the multilateral World Trade Organization agreements. The TPP is also likely to include strong investor protections, introducing major changes to domestic regulatory regimes to enable greater industry involvement in policy making and new avenues for appeal. Transnational food corporations would be able to sue governments if they try to introduce health policies that food companies claim violate their privileges in the TPP; even the potential threat of litigation could greatly curb governments' ability to protect public health. Hence, we find that the TPP, emblematic of a new generation of 21st century trade policy, could potentially yield greater risks to health than prior trade agreements. Because the text of the TPP is secret until the countries involved commit to the agreement, it is essential for public health concerns to be articulated during the negotiation process. Unless the potential health consequences of each part of the text are fully examined and taken into account, and binding language is incorporated in the TPP to safeguard regulatory policy space for health, the TPP could be detrimental to public health nutrition. Health advocates and health-related policymakers must be proactive in their engagement with the trade negotiations.

The abolition of the GP fundholding scheme: a lesson in evidence-based policy making.

The general practitioner (GP) fundholding scheme was introduced as part of the Conservative governments 1991 National Health Service reforms and abolished by the Labour government in 1998. This paper contends that the scheme was introduced and abolished without policy-makers having any valid evidence of its effects. In particular, it focuses on the salient features of the decision to abolish. These were: (a) that it was not based on evidence; (b) that it came relatively soon after the introduction of the scheme; and (c) the GP fundholding scheme was voluntary and increasing numbers of GPs were being recruited. The overtly political nature of the introduction of GP fundholding is already well documented and is important in understanding the lack of evidence involved in the development of the fundholding scheme.