International Journal of Health Services最新文献

Behind the coronavirus headlines the year 2020 set multiple extreme weather records, including unprecedented wildfires in Australia and California, massive flooding in China, and back-to-back hurricanes in Central America. The impacts on the well-being of local populations have been devastating. We reviewed these extreme weather events, together with the year's newly published climate and health science reports, and identified three important themes for building health resilience in the decade ahead: (1) preparing for greater magnitude and intensity of climate hazards, extreme events, and population health impacts; (2) better anticipating cascading and compound impacts on population well-being, particularly for the most vulnerable; and (3) identifying appropriate, effective preparedness tools and strategies. While decarbonizing the economy is the urgent goal to protect both human and planetary health from a changing climate, 2020 demonstrates that recognizing the likely magnitude and complexity of future extreme weather events, and preparing local public health agencies and communities with the knowledge and tools to respond to them, will be essential in this critical decade.

The full impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is yet to be well established; however, as the pandemic spreads, and early results emerge, unmet needs are being revealed, and pressing questions are being asked about who is most affected, how, where, and in what ways government responses might be exacerbating inequalities. A number of scholars have called for more in-depth critical research on COVID-19 and health inequalities to produce a strong empirical evidence based on these issues. There are also justifiable concerns about the scarcity of health-equity actions oriented analyses of the situation and calls for more empirical evidence on COVID-19 and health inequalities. A preliminary condition to establish this type of information is strong capacity to conduct health inequalities research. Worldwide, however, this type of capacity is limited, which, alongside other challenges, will likely hinder capacities of many countries to develop comprehensive equity-oriented COVID-19 analyses, and adequate responses to present and future crises. The current pandemic reinforces the pending need to invest in and strengthen these research capacities. These capacities must be supported by widespread recognition and concern, cognitive social capital, and greater commitment to coordinated, transparent action, and responsibility. Otherwise, we will remain inadequately prepared to respond and meet our society's unmet needs.

Social inequalities in health are known to be influenced by the socioeconomic status of the territory in which people live. In the context of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this study is aimed at assessing the role of 5 area-level indicators in shaping the risk of contagion in the provinces of Milan and Lodi (Lombardy, Italy), namely: educational disadvantage, unemployment, housing crowding, mobility, and population density. The study area includes the municipalities at the origin of the first Italian epidemic outbreak. Data on COVID-19 patients from the Integrated Datawarehouse for COVID Analysis in Milan were used and matched with aggregate-level data from the National Institute of Statistics Italy (Istat). Multilevel logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between the census block-level predictors and COVID-19 infection, independently of age, sex, country of birth, and preexisting health conditions. All the variables were significantly associated with the outcome, with different effects before and after the lockdown and according to the province of residence. This suggests a pattern of socioeconomic inequalities in the outbreak, which should be taken into account in the eventuality of future epidemics to contain their spread and its related disparities.

In Toronto, Canada, 51.5 % of the population are members of racialized groups. Systemic labor market racism has resulted in an overrepresentation of racialized groups in low-income and precarious jobs, a racialization of poverty, and poor health. Yet, the health care system is structured around a model of service delivery and policies that fail to consider unequal power social relations or racism. This study examines how racialized health care users experience classism and everyday racism in the health care setting and whether these experiences differ within stratifications such as social class, gender, and immigration status. A concept mapping design was used to identify mechanisms of classism and everyday racism. For the rating activity, 41 participants identified as racialized health care users. The data analysis was completed using concept systems software. Racialized health care users reported "race"/ethnic-based discrimination as moderate to high and socioeconomic position-/social class-based discrimination as moderate in importance for the challenges experienced when receiving health care; differences within stratifications were also identified. To improve access to services and quality of care, antiracist policies that focus on unequal power social relations and a broader systems thinking are needed to address institutional racism within the health care system.

The coronavirus pandemic has shed light on the detrimental impact of neoliberal policies on public health and well-being and as a result, there have been calls for increases in public spending to rectify the lack of public health services. However, neoliberal right-wing parties have dismissed such calls, pointing instead to Asian countries as examples in successfully controlling the pandemic without high public health spending, attributing this to the entrepreneurial orientation of their governments, as opposed to their public services. This article refutes this idea, instead charting the reasons that Asian countries have better controlled the pandemic including prior experience of pandemics, cultural factors, and various successful public health policies. The article concludes by looking at the example of Trump and demonstrating the inadequacies of the business model for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.

The health, economic, and social crises created by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been global in scope and inequitable in impact. The global road to recovery can be enhanced with robust, relevant, and timely scientific evidence. This commentary seeks to illustrate the power of science, scientific collaboration, and innovative research funding programs to inform pandemic recovery and inspire transformational changes for a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable future. Specifically, this commentary provides an introduction to the United Nations (UN) Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery that was published in November 2020. It introduces 5 scoping reviews that helped inform the UN Research Roadmap and that are now available open access within this series of special papers, and it provides an overview of an innovative research funding program that facilitated rapid mobilization and collaboration to produce the scoping reviews. The publication of the scoping reviews in this journal series will help complement and amplify the UN Research Roadmap by furthering knowledge mobilization efforts and informing COVID-19 recovery around the world, to ensure a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable postpandemic future.

We review recently published studies of US health policy and the nation's health care system. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, health inequalities were widening and care was inequitably distributed. Although the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion improved access to care and timely cancer diagnoses, a large proportion of US residents continued to avoid medical care due to concerns about costs, and access to mental health services remains particularly inadequate. Yet more evidence of private insurers' profit-driven misbehaviors and of corruption among medical leaders continues to emerge. Misguided incentives and lax regulation encourages nominally nonprofit health care providers to mimic for-profits' misconduct, and rapacious investors own and control an increasing share of physicians' practices. Pharmaceutical firms wield outsize political influence and devote far more funds to rewarding investors than to research and development effort. Yet despite vigorous efforts by pharma and other commercial interests to denigrate national health insurance, polls indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to increasing support for such reform.

The world of work is facing an ongoing pandemic and an economic downturn with severe effects worldwide. Workers trapped in precarious employment (PE), both formal and informal, are among those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we call attention to at least 5 critical ways that the consequences of the crisis among workers in PE will be felt globally: (a) PE will increase, (b) workers in PE will become more precarious, (c) workers in PE will face unemployment without being officially laid off, (d) workers in PE will be exposed to serious stressors and dramatic life changes that may lead to a rise in diseases of despair, and (e) PE might be a factor in deterring the control of or in generating new COVID-19 outbreaks. We conclude that what we really need is a new social contract, where the work of all workers is recognized and protected with adequate job contracts, employment security, and social protection in a new economy, both during and after the COVID-19 crisis.

The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) has provided, for more than 4 decades, high-quality, cost-effective medical and social care to older people in the United States under nonprofit ownership. Recent rulings by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, will fundamentally change the initial intent and operation of the program. CMS's final rule (4168-F) removes the provision that PACE operators be nonprofit. This article provides the legislative background for the final ruling and critiques the study that was used to justify the removal of the nonprofit provision. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 listed a number of requirements for evaluating for-profit PACE programs, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services did not follow them before establishing for-profit PACE sites as permanent providers. It also argues that the ruling was made without much evidence that for-profit compared to nonprofit operators can provide a similar level of quality of care, access, and cost-effectiveness and urges policymakers to increase regulatory accountability, given what we know about other shifts in profit status and health care.