Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law最新文献

The US two-party system was transformed in the 1960s when the Democratic Party abandoned its Jim Crow protectionism to incorporate the policy agenda fostered by the civil rights movement, and the Republican Party redirected its platform toward socioeconomic and racial conservatism. The authors argue that the policy agendas promoted by the two parties through presidents and state legislatures codify a racially patterned access to resources and power detrimental to the health of all. To test the hypothesis that fluctuations in overall and race-specific infant mortality rates (IMRs) shift between the parties in power before and after the political realignment (PR), the authors apply panel data analysis methods to state-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics for the period 1915 through 2017. Net of trend, overall, and race-specific IMRs were not statistically different between presidential parties before the PR. This pattern, however, changed after the PR, with Republican administrations consistently underperforming Democratic ones. Net of trend, non-Southern state legislatures controlled by Republicans underperform Democratic ones in overall and racial IMRs in both periods.

Low birth weight and preterm births vary by state, and Black mothers typically face twice the risk that their white counterparts do. This gap reflects an accumulation of psychosocial and material exposures that include interpersonal racism, differential experience with area-level deprivation such as residential segregation, and other harmful exposures that the authors refer to as "institutional" or "structural" racism. The authors use logistic regression models and a dataset that includes all births from 1994 to 2017 as well as five state policies from this period-Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Aid for Needy Families, housing assistance, Medicaid, minimum wage, and the earned income tax credit (EITC)-to examine whether these state social policies, designed to provide a financial safety net, are associated with risk reduction of low birth weight and preterm birth to Black and white mothers, and whether variations in state generosity attenuate the racial inequalities in birth outcomes. The authors also examine whether the relationship between state policies and racial inequalities in birth outcomes is moderated by the education level of the mother. We find that the EITC reduces the risk of low birth weight and preterm birth for Black mothers. The impact is much less consistent for white mothers. For both Black and white mothers, the benefits to birth outcomes are larger for mothers with less education.

Data on the health and social determinants for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPIs) in the United States are hidden, because data are often not collected or are reported in aggregate with other racial/ethnic groups despite decades of calls to disaggregate NHPI data. As a form of structural racism, data omissions contribute to systemic problems such as inability to advocate, lack of resources, and limitations on political power. The authors conducted a data audit to determine how US federal agencies are collecting and reporting disaggregated NHPI data. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, they reviewed how states are reporting NHPI cases and deaths. They then used California's neighborhood equity metric-the California Healthy Places Index (HPI)-to calculate the extent of NHPI underrepresentation in communities targeted for COVID-19 resources in that state. Their analysis shows that while collection and reporting of NHPI data nationally has improved, federal data gaps remain. States are vastly underreporting: more than half of states are not reporting NHPI COVID-19 case and death data. The HPI, used to inform political decisions about allocation of resources to combat COVID-19 in at-risk neighborhoods, underrepresents NHPIs. The authors make recommendations for improving NHPI data equity to achieve health equity and social justice.

This study examines how Mexican-origin women construct and navigate racialized identities in a postindustrial northern border community during a period of prolonged restrictive immigration and immigrant policies, and it considers mechanisms by which responses to racialization may shape health. This grounded theory analysis involves interviews with 48 Mexican-origin women in Detroit, Michigan, who identified as being in the first, 1.5, or second immigrant generation. In response to institutions and institutional agents using racializing markers to assess their legal status and policing access to health-promoting resources, women engaged in a range of strategies to resist being constructed as an "other." Women used the same racializing markers or symbols of (il)legality that had been used against them as a malleable set of resources to resist processes of racialization and to form, preserve, and affirm their identities. These responses include constructing an authorized immigrant identity, engaging in immigration advocacy, and resisting stigmatizing labels. These strategies may have different implications for health over time. Findings indicate the importance of addressing policies that promulgate or exacerbate racialization of Mexican-origin communities and other communities who experience growth through migration. Such policies include creating pathways to legalization and access to resources that have been invoked in racialization processes, such as state-issued driver's licenses.

What exactly is a "racial health disparity"? This article explores five lenses that have been used to answer that question. It contends that racial health disparities have been presented-by researchers both within academia and outside of it-as problems of five varieties: biology, behavior, place, stress, and policy. It also argues that a sixth tradition exploring class-and its connection to race, racism, and health-has been underdeveloped. The author examines each of these conceptions of racial disparities in turn. Baked into each interpretive prism is a set of assumptions about the mechanisms that produce disparities-a story, in other words, about where racial health disparities come from. Discursive boundaries set the parameters for policy debate, determining what is and is not included in proposed solutions. How one sees racial health disparities, then, influences the strategies a society advocates-or ignores-for their elimination. The author ends by briefly discussing problems in the larger research ecosystem that dictate how racial health disparities are studied.

Context: Despite numerous examples of health policy transfer in Western health systems, the nature of such "inspired" reforms has received little detailed attention. The aim of this article is to apply and refine a specific theoretical angle for the analysis of these reforms using the theoretical frameworks of transfer and translation.

Methods: The design is based on a comparative case study: the introduction of disease management programs (DMPs) for diabetes in Germany in 2002 and in France in 2008, drawing on a literature review and semistructured interviews.

Findings: In introducing its DMP, Germany chose and combined several components in a process of selective borrowing, while France opted for copying a specific foreign program and adapting it. Such differences in process are linked to distinct system structures, in particular the setup of health insurance and the representation of physicians. Furthermore, the displayed versus actual degree of inspiration varied significantly, with a branding strategy in Germany (high display of foreign influence) and the inverse picture in France (high degree of actual inspiration).

Conclusions: This analysis has applied the dual perspective of transfer and translation. Both perspectives proved complementary and necessary, and translation appeared as a main determinant of implementation success.