Paula Braveman

Defining equity in health

Study objective: To propose a definition of health equity to guide operationalisation and measurement, and to discuss the practical importance of clarity in defining this concept. Design: Conceptual discussion. Setting, Patients/Participants, and Main results: not applicable. Conclusions: For the purposes of measurement and operationalisation, equity in health is the absence of systematic disparities in health (or in the major social determinants of health) between groups with different levels of underlying social advantage/disadvantage—that is, wealth, power, or prestige. Inequities in health systematically put groups of people who are already socially disadvantaged (for example, by virtue of being poor, female, and/or members of a disenfranchised racial, ethnic, or religious group) at further disadvantage with respect to their health; health is essential to wellbeing and to overcoming other effects of social disadvantage. Equity is an ethical principle; it also is consonant with and closely related to human rights principles. The proposed definition of equity supports operationalisation of the right to the highest attainable standard of health as indicated by the health status of the most socially advantaged group. Assessing health equity requires comparing health and its social determinants between more and less advantaged social groups. These comparisons are essential to assess whether national and international policies are leading toward or away from greater social justice in health.

Socioeconomic Disparities in Health in the United States: What the Patterns Tell Us

OBJECTIVES We aimed to describe socioeconomic disparities in the United States across multiple health indicators and socioeconomic groups. METHODS Using recent national data on 5 child (infant mortality, health status, activity limitation, healthy eating, sedentary adolescents) and 6 adult (life expectancy, health status, activity limitation, heart disease, diabetes, obesity) health indicators, we examined indicator rates across multiple income or education categories, overall and within racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS Those with the lowest income and who were least educated were consistently least healthy, but for most indicators, even groups with intermediate income and education levels were less healthy than the wealthiest and most educated. Gradient patterns were seen often among non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites but less consistently among Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS Health in the United States is often, though not invariably, patterned strongly along both socioeconomic and racial/ethnic lines, suggesting links between hierarchies of social advantage and health. Worse health among the most socially disadvantaged argues for policies prioritizing those groups, but pervasive gradient patterns also indicate a need to address a wider socioeconomic spectrum-which may help garner political support. Routine health reporting should examine socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparity patterns, jointly and separately.

The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age

In the United States, awareness is increasing that medical care alone cannot adequately improve health overall or reduce health disparities without also addressing where and how people live. A critical mass of relevant knowledge has accumulated, documenting associations, exploring pathways and biological mechanisms, and providing a previously unavailable scientific foundation for appreciating the role of social factors in health. We review current knowledge about health effects of social (including economic) factors, knowledge gaps, and research priorities, focusing on upstream social determinants-including economic resources, education, and racial discrimination-that fundamentally shape the downstream determinants, such as behaviors, targeted by most interventions. Research priorities include measuring social factors better, monitoring social factors and health relative to policies, examining health effects of social factors across lifetimes and generations, incrementally elucidating pathways through knowledge linkage, testing multidimensional interventions, and addressing political will as a key barrier to translating knowledge into action.

Lower-Extremity Amputation in People With Diabetes: Epidemiology and Prevention

The age-adjusted rate of lower-extremity amputation (LEA) in the diabetic population is ∼15 times that of the nondiabetic population. Over 50,000 LEAs were performed on individuals with diabetes in the United States in 1985. Among individuals with diabetes, peripheral neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) are major predisposing factors for LEA. Lack of adequate foot care and infection are additional risk factors. Several large clinical centers have experienced a 44–85% reduction in the rate of amputations among individuals with diabetes after the implementation of improved foot-careprograms. Programs to reduce amputations among people with diabetes in primarycare settings should identify those at high risk; clinically evaluate individuals to determine specific risk status; ensure appropriate preventive therapy, treatment for foot problems, and follow-up; provide patient education;and, when necessary, refer patients to specialists, including health-care professionals for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and shoe fitters for proper footwear. Programs should monitor and evaluate their activities andoutcomes. Many issues related to the etiology and prevention of LEAs requirefurther research.

Socioeconomic Disparities in Adverse Birth Outcomes A Systematic Review

CONTEXT Adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birth weight, have serious health consequences across the life course. Socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes have not been the subject of a recent systematic review. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the association of socioeconomic disadvantage with adverse birth outcomes, with specific attention to the strength and consistency of effects across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and populations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Relevant articles published from 1999 to 2007 were obtained through electronic database searches and manual searches of reference lists. English-language studies from industrialized countries were included if (1) study objectives included examination of a socioeconomic disparity in a birth outcome and (2) results were presented on the association between a socioeconomic predictor and a birth outcome related to birth weight, gestational age, or intrauterine growth. Two reviewers extracted data and independently rated study quality; data were analyzed in 2008-2009. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Ninety-three of 106 studies reported a significant association, overall or within a population subgroup, between a socioeconomic measure and a birth outcome. Socioeconomic disadvantage was consistently associated with increased risk across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and countries; many studies observed racial/ethnic differences in the effect of socioeconomic measures. CONCLUSIONS Socioeconomic differences in birth outcomes remain pervasive, with substantial variation by racial or ethnic subgroup, and are associated with disadvantage measured at multiple levels (individual/family, neighborhood) and time points (childhood, adulthood), and with adverse health behaviors that are themselves socially patterned. Future reviews should focus on identifying interventions to successfully reduce socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes.

The Social Determinants of Health: It's Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes

During the past two decades, the public health communitys attention has been drawn increasingly to the social determinants of health (SDH)—the factors apart from medical care that can be influenced by social policies and shape health in powerful ways. We use “medical care” rather than “health care” to refer to clinical services, to avoid potential confusion between “health” and “health care.” The World Health Organizations Commission on the Social Determinants of Health has defined SDH as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age” and “the fundamental drivers of these conditions.” The term “social determinants” often evokes factors such as health-related features of neighborhoods (e g., walkability, recreational areas, and accessibility of healthful foods), which can influence health-related behaviors. Evidence has accumulated, however, pointing to socioeconomic factors such as income, wealth, and education as the fundamental causes of a wide range of health outcomes This article broadly reviews some of the knowledge accumulated to date that highlights the importance of social—and particularly socioeconomic—factors in shaping health, and plausible pathways and biological mechanisms that may explain their effects. We also discuss challenges to advancing this knowledge and how they might be overcome.

Health Disparities Beginning in Childhood: A Life-Course Perspective

In this article we argue for the utility of the life-course perspective as a tool for understanding and addressing health disparities across socioeconomic and racial or ethnic groups, particularly disparities that originate in childhood. Key concepts and terms used in life-course research are briefly defined; as resources, examples of existing literature and the outcomes covered are provided along with examples of longitudinal databases that have often been used for life-course research. The life-course perspective focuses on understanding how early-life experiences can shape health across an entire lifetime and potentially across generations; it systematically directs attention to the role of context, including social and physical context along with biological factors, over time. This approach is particularly relevant to understanding and addressing health disparities, because social and physical contextual factors underlie socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in health. A major focus of life-course epidemiology has been to understand how early-life experiences (particularly experiences related to economic adversity and the social disadvantages that often accompany it) shape adult health, particularly adult chronic disease and its risk factors and consequences. The strong life-course influences on adult health could provide a powerful rationale for policies at all levels—federal, state, and local—to give more priority to investment in improving the living conditions of children as a strategy for improving health and reducing health disparities across the entire life course. Pediatrics 2009;124:S163–S175

Health disparities and health equity: the issue is justice.

Eliminating health disparities is a Healthy People goal. Given the diverse and sometimes broad definitions of health disparities commonly used, a subcommittee convened by the Secretarys Advisory Committee for Healthy People 2020 proposed an operational definition for use in developing objectives and targets, determining resource allocation priorities, and assessing progress. Based on that subcommittees work, we propose that health disparities are systematic, plausibly avoidable health differences adversely affecting socially disadvantaged groups; they may reflect social disadvantage, but causality need not be established. This definition, grounded in ethical and human rights principles, focuses on the subset of health differences reflecting social injustice, distinguishing health disparities from other health differences also warranting concerted attention, and from health differences in general. We explain the definition, its underlying concepts, the challenges it addresses, and the rationale for applying it to United States public health policy.

Social inequalities in health within countries: not only an issue for affluent nations

While interest in social disparities in health within affluent nations has been growing, discussion of equity in health with regard to low- and middle-income countries has generally focused on north-south and between-country differences, rather than on gaps between social groups within the countries where most of the worlds population lives. This paper aims to articulate a rationale for focusing on within- as well as between-country health disparities in nations of all per capita income levels, and to suggest relevant reference material, particularly for developing country researchers. Routine health information can obscure large inter-group disparities within a country. While appropriately disaggregated routine information is lacking, evidence from special studies reveals significant and in many cases widening disparities in health among more and less privileged social groups within low- and middle- as well as high-income countries: avoidable disparities are observed not only across socioeconomic groups but also by gender, ethnicity, and other markers of underlying social disadvantage. Globally, economic inequalities are widening and, where relevant information is available, generally accompanied by widening or stagnant health inequalities. Related global economic trends, including pressures to cut social spending and compete in global markets, are making it especially difficult for lower-income countries to implement and sustain equitable policies. For all of these reasons, explicit concerns about equity in health and its determinants need to be placed higher on the policy and research agendas of both international and national organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. International agencies can strengthen or undermine national efforts to achieve greater equity. The Primary Health Care strategy is at least as relevant today as it was two decades ago: but equity needs to move from being largely implicit to becoming an explicit component of the strategy, and progress toward greater equity must be carefully monitored in countries of all per capita income levels. Particularly in the context of an increasingly globalized world, improvements in health for privileged groups should suggest what could, with political will, be possible for all.

Insurance-Related Differences in the Risk of Ruptured Appendix

BACKGROUND We studied differences in the incidence of appendiceal perforation in patients with acute appendicitis according to their insurance coverage. METHODS In a retrospective analysis of hospital-discharge data, we examined the likelihood of ruptured appendix among adults 18 to 64 years old who were hospitalized for acute appendicitis in California from 1984 to 1989. RESULTS After controlling for age, sex, psychiatric diagnoses, substance abuse, diabetes, poverty, race or ethnic group, and hospital characteristics, we found that ruptured appendix was more likely among both Medicaid-covered and uninsured patients with appendicitis than among patients with private capitated coverage (odds ratios, 1.49 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.41 to 1.59] and 1.46 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.39 to 1.54], respectively). After adjustment for the above factors, the risk of appendiceal rupture associated with a lack of private insurance was elevated at both county and other hospitals, but admission to a county hospital was an independent risk factor. In all income groups, appendiceal rupture was more likely with fee-for-service than capitated private coverage (overall odds ratio, 1.20 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.15 to 1.25]). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with appendicitis an increased risk of ruptured appendix may be due to insurance-related delays in obtaining medical care. Both organizational and financial features of Medicaid and various types or levels of private third-party coverage may be involved. The significant association between ruptured appendix and insurance coverage after adjustment for socio-economic differences suggests barriers to receiving medically necessary acute care that should be considered in current deliberations on health policy.