Milbank Quarterly最新文献

Policy Points Cultural racism-or the widespread values that privilege and protect Whiteness and White social and economic power-permeates all levels of society, uplifts other dimensions of racism, and contributes to health inequities. Overt forms of racism, such as racial hate crimes, represent only the "tip of the iceberg," whereas structural and institutional racism represent its base. This paper advances cultural racism as the "water surrounding the iceberg," allowing it to float while obscuring its base. Considering the fundamental role of cultural racism is needed to advance health equity.

Context: Cultural racism is a pervasive social toxin that surrounds all other dimensions of racism to produce and maintain racial health inequities. Yet, cultural racism has received relatively little attention in the public health literature. The purpose of this paper is to 1) provide public health researchers and policymakers with a clearer understanding of what cultural racism is, 2) provide an understanding of how it operates in conjunction with the other dimensions of racism to produce health inequities, and 3) offer directions for future research and interventions on cultural racism.

Methods: We conducted a nonsystematic, multidisciplinary review of theory and empirical evidence that conceptualizes, measures, and documents the consequences of cultural racism for social and health inequities.

Findings: Cultural racism can be defined as a culture of White supremacy, which values, protects, and normalizes Whiteness and White social and economic power. This ideological system operates at the level of our shared social consciousness and is expressed in the language, symbols, and media representations of dominant society. Cultural racism surrounds and bolsters structural, institutional, personally mediated, and internalized racism, undermining health through material, cognitive/affective, biologic, and behavioral mechanisms across the life course.

Conclusions: More time, research, and funding is needed to advance measurement, elucidate mechanisms, and develop evidence-based policy interventions to reduce cultural racism and promote health equity.

Policy Points Health and civic engagement are reciprocally and longitudinally linked: Poor health is associated with less civic engagement. Well-established social drivers of health and health inequality such as inadequate access to health care, poverty, racism, housing instability, and food insecurity are also drivers of lower civic engagement. A robust primary care system can play a key role in advancing civic engagement (e.g., voting, volunteerism, community service, and political involvement) at the population level but has received little attention. Policy and practice solutions at the individual and structural levels should support and leverage potential synergies among health equity, civic engagement, and primary care.

Context: Health and civic engagement are linked. Healthier people may be able to participate more fully in civic life, although those with poorer health may be motivated to address the roots of their health challenges using collective action. In turn, civically active people may experience better health, and societies with more equitable health and health care may experience healthier civic life. Importantly, a robust primary care system is linked to greater health equity. However, the role of primary care in advancing civic engagement has received little study.

Methods: We synthesize current literature on the links among health, civic engagement, and primary care. We propose a conceptual framework to advance research and policy on the role of primary care in supporting civic engagement as a means for individuals to actualize their health and civic futures.

Findings: Current literature supports relationships between health equity and civic engagement. However, this literature is primarily cross-sectional and confined to voting. Our integrative conceptual framework highlights the interconnectedness of primary care structures, health equity, and civic engagement and supports the crucial role of primary care in advancing both civic and health outcomes. Primary care is a potentially fruitful setting for cultivating community and individual health and power by supporting social connectedness, self-efficacy, and collective action.

Conclusions: Health and civic engagement are mutually reinforcing. Commonalities between social determinants of health and civic engagement constitute an important convergence for policy, practice, and research. Responsibility for promoting both health and civic engagement is shared by providers, community organizations, educators, and policymakers, as well as democratic and health systems, yet these entities rarely work in concert. Future work can inform policy and practice to bolster primary care as a means for promoting health and civic engagement.

Policy Points The meaning of health in health care remains poorly defined, defaulting to a narrow, biomedical disease model. A national dialogue could create a consensus regarding a holistic and humanized definition of health that promotes health care transformation and health equity. Key steps for operationalizing a holistic meaning of health in health care include national leadership by federal agencies, intersectoral collaborations that include diverse communities, organizational and cultural change in medical education, and implementation of high-quality primary care. The 2023 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on achieving whole health offers recommendations for action.

Policy Points The erosion of electoral democracy in the United States in recent decades may have contributed to the high and rising working-age mortality rates, which predate the COVID-19 pandemic. Eroding electoral democracy in a US state was associated with higher working-age mortality from homicide, suicide, and especially from drug poisoning and infectious disease. State and federal efforts to strengthen electoral democracy, such as banning partisan gerrymandering, improving voter enfranchisement, and reforming campaign finance laws, could potentially avert thousands of deaths each year among working-age adults.

Context: Working-age mortality rates are high and rising in the United States, an alarming fact that predates the COVID-19 pandemic. Although several reasons for the high and rising rates have been hypothesized, the potential role of democratic erosion has been overlooked. This study examined the association between electoral democracy and working-age mortality and assessed how economic, behavioral, and social factors may have contributed to it.

Methods: We used the State Democracy Index (SDI), an annual summary of each state's electoral democracy from 2000 to 2018. We merged the SDI with annual age-adjusted mortality rates for adults 25-64 years in each state. Models estimated the association between the SDI and working-age mortality (from all causes and six specific causes) within states, adjusting for political party control, safety net generosity, union coverage, immigrant population, and stable characteristics of states. We assessed whether economic (income, unemployment), behavioral (alcohol consumption, sleep), and social (marriage, violent crime, incarceration) factors accounted for the association.

Findings: Increasing electoral democracy in a state from a moderate level (defined as the third quintile of the SDI distribution) to a high level (defined as the fifth quintile) was associated with an estimated 3.2% and 2.7% lower mortality rate among working-age men and women, respectively, over the next year. Increasing electoral democracy in all states from the third to the fifth quintile of the SDI distribution may have resulted in 20,408 fewer working-age deaths in 2019. The democracy-mortality association mainly reflected social factors and, to a lesser extent, health behaviors. Increasing electoral democracy in a state was mostly strongly associated with lower mortality from drug poisoning and infectious diseases, followed by reductions in homicide and suicide.

Conclusions: Erosion of electoral democracy is a threat to population health. This study adds to growing evidence that electoral democracy and population health are inextricably linked.

Policy Points Policymakers should invest in programs to support rural health systems, with a more targeted focus on spatial accessibility and racial and ethnic equity, not only total supply or nearest facility measures. Health plan network adequacy standards should address spatial access to nearest and second nearest hospital care and incorporate equity standards for Black and Latinx rural communities. Black and Latinx rural residents contend with inequities in spatial access to hospital care, which arise from fundamental structural inequities in spatial allocation of economic opportunity in rural communities of color. Long-term policy solutions including reparations are needed to address these underlying processes.

Context: The growing rate of rural hospital closures elicits concerns about declining access to hospital-based care. Our research objectives were as follows: 1) characterize the change in rural hospital supply in the US South between 2007 and 2018, accounting for health system closures, mergers, and conversions; 2) quantify spatial accessibility (in 2018) for populations most at risk for adverse outcomes following hospital closure-Black and Latinx rural communities; and 3) use multilevel modeling to examine relationships between structural factors and disparities in spatial access to care.

Methods: To calculate spatial access, we estimated the network travel distance and time between the census tract-level population-weighted centroids to the nearest and second nearest operating hospital in the years 2007 and 2018. Thereafter, to describe the demographic and health system characteristics of places in relation to spatial accessibility to hospital-based care in 2018, we estimated three-level (tract, county, state-level) generalized linear models.

Findings: We found that 72 (10%) rural counties in the South had ≥1 hospital closure between 2007 and 2018, and nearly half of closure counties (33) lost their last remaining hospital to closure. Net of closures, mergers, and conversions meant hospital supply declined from 783 to 653. Overall, 49.1% of rural tracts experienced worsened spatial access to their nearest hospital, whereas smaller proportions experienced improved (32.4%) or unchanged (18.5%) access between 2007 and 2018. Tracts located within closure counties had longer travel times to the nearest acute care hospital compared with tracts in nonclosure counties. Moreover, rural tracts within Southern states with more concentrated commercial health insurance markets had shorter travel times to access the second nearest hospital.

Conclusions: Rural places affected by rural hospital closures have greater travel burdens for acute care. Across the rural South, racial/ethnic inequities in spatial access to acute care are most pronounced when travel times to the second nearest open acute care hospital are accounted for.

Policy Points There need to be sweeping changes to medical school curricula that addresses structural racism in medicine and how to attend to this in medical practice. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education should develop and promulgate specific learning objectives and curricular offerings that require medical schools to teach about structural racism and antiracist medical practice in ways that are robust and standardized. The federal government, through the Health Resources and Services Administration, should prioritize support for antiracism education in medical schools, residency, and continuing medical education in similar ways and with similar effort in scale and scope to its support for primary care, providing technical assistance and grants for programs across the educational spectrum that provide antiracist training. State governments should mandate, as part of continuing education requirements for physicians, 2 or more hours per recertification cycle of antiracist training.

Context: Since the beginning of COVID-19 and the rise of social justice movements sparked by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in the summer of 2020, many medical schools have made public statements committing themselves to become antiracist institutions. The notions that US society generally, and medicine, are rife with structural racism no longer seems as controversial in the academic community. Challenges remain, however, in how this basic understanding gets translated into medical education practice. Understanding where the profession must go should start with understanding where we currently are.

Methods: Prior to the events of 2020, in the spring of 2018, we conducted nine key informant interviews to learn about the challenges and best practices from schools deemed to be positive deviants in teaching about structural racism.

Findings: Our interviews showed that even those schools deemed positive deviants in the amount of teaching done about structural racism faced significant barriers in providing a robust education.

Conclusions: Significant structural change, perhaps far beyond what most schools consider themselves willing and able to engage in, will be necessary if future US physicians are to fully understand and address structural racism as it affects their profession, their practice, and their patients.