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.

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.

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.

Canadian mining and ill health in Latin America: a call to action.

This commentary argues that Canada's public and global health communities have a special ethical and political responsibility to act to reverse the harms associated with Canadian mining activities in Latin America and beyond through advocacy, research, and using their public voice. We begin with an overview of the direct and indirect health effects of mining, drawing especially on Latin America where 50-70% of mining activity involves Canadian companies. Then we examine the judicial, legislative, financial, and diplomatic contexts that make Canada such a welcome host and champion of the mining sector. Finally, we turn to the responsibility of the public and global health communities, offering concrete recommendations for using research, practical expertise public health solidarity networks, and political clout to speak out and advocate for policies that redress the harms caused by mining.

How extractive industries affect health: Political economy underpinnings and pathways.

A systematic and theoretically informed analysis of how extractive industries affect health outcomes and health inequities is overdue. Informed by the work of Saskia Sassen on "logics of extraction," we adopt an expansive definition of extractive industries to include (for example) large-scale foreign acquisitions of agricultural land for export production. To ground our analysis in concrete place-based evidence, we begin with a brief review of four case examples of major extractive activities. We then analyze the political economy of extractivism, focusing on the societal structures, processes, and relationships of power that drive and enable extraction. Next, we examine how this global order shapes and interacts with politics, institutions, and policies at the state/national level contextualizing extractive activity. Having provided necessary context, we posit a set of pathways that link the global political economy and national politics and institutional practices surrounding extraction to health outcomes and their distribution. These pathways involve both direct health effects, such as toxic work and environmental exposures and assassination of activists, and indirect effects, including sustained impoverishment, water insecurity, and stress-related ailments. We conclude with some reflections on the need for future research on the health and health equity implications of the global extractive order.

Priority Setting: Right Answer to a Far Too Narrow Question? Comment on "Global Developments in Priority Setting in Health".

In their recent editorial, Baltussen and colleagues provide a concise summary of the prevailing discourse on priority-setting in health policy. Their perspective is entirely consistent with current practice, yet they unintentionally demonstrate the narrowness and moral precariousness of that discourse and practice. I respond with demonstrations of the importance of 'interrogating scarcity' in a variety of contexts.

"Stop, You're Killing us!" An Alternative Take on Populism and Public Health Comment on "The Rise of Post-truth Populism in Pluralist Liberal Democracies: Challenges for Health Policy".

Ewen Speed and Russell Mannion correctly identify several contours of the challenges for health policy in what it is useful to think of as a post-democratic era. I argue that the problem for public health is not populism per se, but rather the distinctive populism of the right coupled with the failure of the left to develop compelling counternarratives. Further, defences of 'science' must be tempered by recognition of the unavoidably political dimensions of the (mis)use of scientific findings in public policy.

A New Gilded Age, and What It Means for Global Health Comment on "Global Health Governance Challenges 2016 - Are We Ready?"

New contours of global inequality present new challenges for global health, and require that we consider new kinds of health issues as global. I provide a number of illustrations, arguing the need for a political science of health that goes beyond conventional preoccupations with formal institutional and inter-state interactions and takes into account how globalization has affected the health policy landscape and restructured the distribution of economic and political power not only among countries, but also within them.

Was Mackenbach right? Towards a practical political science of redistribution and health inequalities.

In 2010, Mackenbach reflected on England's lack of success in reducing health inequalities between 1997 and 2010, asserting that "it is difficult to imagine a longer window of opportunity for tackling health inequalities"; asking "[i]f this did not work, what will?"; and concluding that reducing health inequalities was not politically feasible at least in that jurisdiction. Exploring the empirics of that observation offers a window into the politics of reducing health inequalities. For purposes of future comparative research, I outline three (not mutually exclusive) perspectives on political feasibility, identify their implications for a political science of health inequalities, and explore what they mean for advocacy in support of reducing those inequalities.