Milbank Quarterly最新文献

Policy Points Given the challenges associated with negotiating the COVID-19 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Waiver, there are questions as to whether the World Trade Organization is able to effectively address pandemics and global crises under the current architecture. Although the framework set out by the TRIPS Agreement does not view intellectual property (IP) rights as a means to foster public health and development, IP rights should nonetheless be interpreted through a public health lens. Countries should implement compulsory licensing provisions into their patent legislation, which increase access to medicines and allow governments (especially in developing and least-developed countries) to better protect public health.

Context: The protection of intellectual property (IP) rights, given international legal effect through the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, has long been a contentious issue. In recent years, the long-standing debate on IP rights as a barrier to the access of affordable medicines has been heightened by the global vaccine inequity evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The TRIPS Agreement contains a number of flexibilities that WTO members can exploit in order to accommodate their policy needs. Among these is the mechanism of compulsory licensing, whereby patent licenses may be granted without consent of the patent holder in certain circumstances. TRIPS Article 31bis created a special mechanism for compulsory licenses specifically for the export of pharmaceutical products to countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity.

Methods: We analyzed domestic patent legislation for 195 countries (193 UN members and two observers) and three customs territories. We analyzed patent legislation for provisions on compulsory licenses, including those defined in Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement.

Findings: We identified 11 countries with no patent legislation. Of the 187 countries with domestic or regional patent laws, 176 (94.1%) had provisions on compulsory licensing and 72 (38.5%) had provisions implementing TRIPS Article 31bis.

Conclusions: The results of this study have highlighted the gap in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in countries' national patent legislation, especially in least-developed countries. Although it will not fully solve patent barriers to the access of medicines, implementation of compulsory licensing (and specifically those for the import and export of pharmaceutical products) will provide governments with another tool to safeguard their population's public health. Further discussions are needed to determine whether the WTO can provide effective responses to future pandemics or global crises.

Policy Points Molecular HIV surveillance and cluster detection and response (MHS/CDR) programs have been a core public health activity in the United States since 2018 and are the "fourth pillar" of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative launched in 2019. MHS/CDR has caused controversy, including calls for a moratorium from networks of people living with HIV. In October 2022, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) adopted a resolution calling for major reforms. We analyze the policy landscape and present four proposals to federal stakeholders pertaining to PACHA's recommendations about incorporating opt-outs and plain-language notifications into MHS/CDR programs.

Policy Points Inclusive state immigrant policies that expand rights and resources for immigrants may improve population health, but little is known about their local-level implementation. Local actors that have anti-immigrant attitudes can hinder the implementation of state policies, whereas the persistent influence of anti-immigrant federal policies reinforces barriers to accessing health and other resources granted by state policies. Local actors that serve immigrants and support state policy implementation lack the resources to counter anti-immigrant climates and federal policy threats.

Context: In the United States, inclusive state-level policies can advance immigrant health and health care access by extending noncitizens' access to public benefits, workplace rights, and protections from immigration enforcement. Although state policies carry promise as structural population health interventions, there has been little examination of their implementation at the local level. Local jurisdictions play multiple roles in state policy implementation and possess distinct immigration climates. Examining the local implementation of state immigrant policy can address challenges and opportunities to ensure the health benefits of inclusive policies are realized equitably across states' regions.

Methods: To examine the local implementation of state immigrant policies, we selected a purposive sample of California counties with large immigrant populations and distinct social and political dynamics and conducted and analyzed in-depth interviews with 20 community-based organizations that provided health, safety net, and other services.

Findings: We found that there were tensions between the inclusionary goals of state immigrant policies and local anti-immigrant climates and federal policy changes. First, there were tensions between state policy goals and resistance from local law enforcement agencies and policymakers (e.g., Board of Supervisors). Second, because of the ongoing threats from federal immigration policies, there was a mismatch between the services and resources provided by state policies and local community needs. Finally, organizations that served immigrants were responsible for contributing to policy implementation but lacked resources to meet community needs while countering local resistance and federal policy threats.

Conclusions: This study contributes knowledge regarding the challenges that emerge after state immigrant policies are enacted. The tensions among state immigrant policies, local immigration climates, and federal policy changes indicate that state immigrant policies are not implemented equally across state communities, resulting in challenges and limited benefits from policies for many immigrant communities.

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.