Reframing EU Public Health Governance:From Risk to Citizenship and Participation

Risk is the dominant frame for the European Union’s growing albeit often overlooked public health governance. The starting point for this chapter is the distortion of public health priorities by and within this frame. I argue that existing efforts to identify, underline and tackle the distortions can be strengthened by reframing governance as a matter of citizenship so as to develop citizen participation in decision making.

Offshoring Clinical Trials: The Mutable Ethics, Weak Protections and Vulnerable Subjects of EU Law

In this paper I engage with science and technology studies work on pharmaceuticalisation to explore how European Union (EU) law helps to produce and support the preference for pharmaceutical responses in public health governance, while authorising the production of vulnerable subjects through the growing off-shoring of clinical trials. Drawing on the analysis of legal and policy documents, I demonstrate how EU law allows and legitimates the use of data procured from vulnerable subjects abroad for market authorisation and corporate profitability at home. This is possible because the EU has (de)selected international ethical frameworks in order to support the continued and growing use of clinical trials data from abroad. This has helped to stimulate the revision of international ethical frameworks in light of market needs, inscribing EU public health law within specific politics (that often remained obscured by the joint workings of legal and technological discourses). I suggest that law operates as part of a broader ‘technology’ – encompassing ethics and human rights discourses – that functions to optimise life through resort to market reasoning. Law is thereby reoriented, instrumentalised and deployed as part of a broader project aimed at (re)defining and limiting the boundaries of the EU's responsibility for public health, including the broader social production of public health problems and the unequal global order that the EU represents and helps to depoliticise and perpetuate. Overall, this limits the EU's responsibility and accountability for these failures, as well as another: the weak and mutable protections and insecure legacies for vulnerable trial subjects abroad.

‘Together for Health’? How EU Governance of Health Undermines Active Biological Citizenship

This paper explores the potential for active biological citizenship in the discursive space opened by the Community law rights to receive cross-border health care services. By focusing on the European Patients’ Forum and the European Public Health Association as examples of actors facilitated by the European Union, the paper notes how this space might provide some opportunities for patients’ strategic engagement, but also how EU governance discourse is shaping and undermining the potential for activism.

Does governance matter for aggregate health capital?

The point of departure of our analysis is the seminal work of Rodgers (1979) on the absolute and relative income hypotheses. We find that substituting the governance index for the Gini index is statistically the preferred regression model. Our findings lend support to the argument that governance matters. Further investigation provides evidence for two types of threshold effects: in terms of both absolute income and governance. For those countries below a threshold, absolute income is the most significant determinant of health, while for those above it, governance matters the most. The regression analyses are conducted on a sample of 112 states, which is representative of a wide range of absolute income and governance levels.

The Open Method of Coordination on Health Care After the Lisbon Strategy II: Towards a Neoliberal Framing?

This paper undertakes a content analysis of the discourse on the Open Method of Coordination on Health Care (OMC/HC) in order to show how equity and solidarity are increasingly linked to optimisation and, as such, how neoliberalism increasingly frames health care. Some of the side-effects of this reframing for politics are highlighted: legitimating and extending EU governance, reducing the space for oppositional formations and limited citizenship. The analysis begins by interrogating the broader context of the Lisbon Strategy II, after which the techniques of the OMC/HC and its substantive outputs are analysed.

The challenges of joint working: lessons from the Supporting People Health Pilot evaluation

Purpose: This paper reports the findings of the evaluation of the Supporting People Health Pilots programme, which was established to demonstrate the policy links between housing support services and health and social care services by encouraging the development of integrated services. The paper highlights the challenges Method: The evaluation of the six health pilots rested on two main sources of data collection: Quarterly Project Evaluation Reports collected process data as well as reporting progress against aims and objectives. Semi-structured interviews—conducted across all key professional stakeholder groups and agencies and with people who used services—explored their experiences of these new services. Results: The ability of pilots to work across organisational boundaries to achieve their aims and objectives was associated not only with agencies sharing an understanding of the purpose of the joint venture, a history of joint working and clear and efficient governance arrangements but on two other characteristics: the extent and nature of statutory sector participation and, whether or not the service is defined by a history of voluntary sector involvement. In particular the pilots demonstrated how voluntary sector agencies appeared to be less constrained by organisational priorities and professional agenda and more able to respond flexibly to meet the complex needs of individuals. Conclusion and discussion: The pilots demonstrate that integrating services to support people with complex needs works best

Regulatory or Regulating Publics? The European Union’s Regulation of Emerging Health Technologies and Citizen Participation

‘Citizen participation’ includes various participatory techniques and is frequently viewed as an unproblematic and important social good when used as part of the regulation of the innovation and implementation of science and technology. This is perhaps especially evident in debates around ‘anticipatory governance’ or ‘upstream engagement’. Here, we interrogate this thesis using the example of the European Union’s regulation of emerging health technologies (such as nanotechnology). In this case, citizen participation in regulatory debate is concerned with innovative objects for medical application that are considered to be emergent or not yet concrete. Through synthesising insights from law, regulatory studies, critical theory, and science and technology studies (STS), we seek to cast new light on the promises, paradoxes and pitfalls of citizen participation as a tool or technology of regulation in itself. As such we aim to generate a new vantage point from which to view the values and sociotechnical imaginaries that are both ‘designed-in’ and ‘designed-out’ of citizen participation. In so doing, we show not only how publics (do not) regulate technologies, but also how citizens themselves are regulated through the techniques of participation. © The Author [2012].

‘Papers from ‘A Symposium with Professor Roger Brownsword: Super-stewardship in the Context of Public Health’’

This special issue seeks to engage the term 'stewardship' and the practical and theoretical work around it, both of which are destined to remain items of unfinished business as governance struggles to keep up and connect with its fast moving technological and societal targets. While this special issue is testament to that observation, it also helps to foster much needed scholarly discussion and critique – and to ensure this field is not unwittingly formed and deployed by and as a legitimating support for governance, but rather opened up, elaborated and contested. The articles provide innovative insights and food for thought on the conception and legal-political practice and potential of stewardship and ‘super-stewardship’ in national, supranational and international settings.

Capitalism, the state and health care in the age of austerity:A Marxist analysis

The capacity to provide satisfactory nursing care is being increasingly compromised by current trajectories of healthcare funding and governance. The purpose of this paper is to examine how well Marxist theories of the state and its relationship with capital can explain these trajectories in this period of ever-increasing austerity. Following a brief history of the current crisis, it examines empirically the effects of the crisis, and of the current trajectory of capitalism in general, upon the funding and organization of the UK and US healthcare systems. The deleterious effect of growing income inequalities to the health of the population are also addressed. Marx’s writings on the state and its relation to the capitalist class were fragmentary, and historically and geographically specific. From them, we can extract three theoretical variants: the instrumentalist theory of the state, where the state has no autonomy from capital; the abdication theory, whereby capital abstains from direct political power and relies on the state to serve its interests; and the class-balance theory of the state, whereby the struggle between two opposed classes allows the state to assert itself. Discussion of modern Marxist interpretations include Poulantzas’s structuralist abdication theory and Miliband’s instrumentalist theory. It is concluded that, despite the pluralism of electoral democracies, the bourgeoisie do have an overweening influence upon the state. The bourgeoisie’s ownership of the means of production provides the foundation for its influence because the state is obliged to rely on it to manage the supply of goods and services and the creation of wealth. That power is further reinforced by the infiltration of the bourgeoisie into the organs of state. The level of influence has accelerated rapidly over recent decades. One of the consequences of this has been that healthcare systems have become rich pickings for the evermore confident bourgeoisie.

Self-reported teamwork in family health team practices in Ontario:Organizational and cultural predictors of team climate

Objective: To determine the organizational predictors of higher scores on team climate measures as an indicator of the functioning of a family health team (FHT). Design: Cross-sectional study using a mailed survey. Setting: Family health teams in Ontario. Participants: Twenty-one of 144 consecutively approached FHTs; 628 team members were surveyed. Main outcome measures: Scores on the team climate inventory, which assessed organizational culture type (group, developmental, rational, or hierarchical); leadership perceptions; and organizational factors, such as use of electronic medical records (EMRs), team composition, governance of the FHT, location, meetings, and time since FHT initiation. All analyses were adjusted for clustering of respondents within the FHT using a mixed random-intercepts model. Results: The response rate was 65.8% (413 of 628); 2 were excluded from analysis, for a total of 411 participants. At the time of survey completion, there was a median of 4 physicians, 11 other health professionals, and 4 management and clerical staff per FHT. The average team climate score was 3.8 out of a possible 5. In multivariable regression analysis, leadership score, group and developmental culture types, and use of more EMR capabilities were associated with higher team climate scores. Other organizational factors, such as number of sites and size of group, were not associated with the team climate score. Conclusion: Culture, leadership, and EMR functionality, rather than organizational composition of the teams (eg, number of professionals on staff, practice size), were the most important factors in predicting climate in primary care teams.

Scientific standards for human intervention trials evaluating health benefits of foods, and their application to infants, children and adolescents

Associations between the consumption of particular foods and health outcomes may be indicated by observational studies. However, intervention trials that evaluate the health benefits of foods provide the strongest evidence to support dietary recommendations for health. Thus, it is important that these trials are carried out safely, and to high scientific standards. Accepted standards for the reporting of the health benefits of pharmaceutical and other medical interventions have been provided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. However, there are no generally accepted standards for trials to evaluate the health benefits of foods. Trials with foods differ from medical trials in issues related to safety, ethics, research governance and practical implementation. Furthermore, these important issues can deter the conduct of both medical and nutrition trials in infants, children and adolescents. This paper provides standards for the planning, design, conduct, statistical analysis and interpretation of human intervention trials to evaluate the health benefits of foods that are based on the CONSORT guidelines, and outlines the key issues that need to be addressed in trials in participants in the paediatric age range.

The EU Constitution of Social Governance in an Economic Crisis: in Defence of a Transnational Dimension to Social Europe

Conventional wisdom has it that the EU is unable to promote viable social integration, which contrasts with its commitments to improving working and living conditions and to social values and goals such as solidarity, social protection and social inclusion. This
article challenges two diff erent standpoints: on the one hand, competitive neoliberalism demands that the EU focuses on economic integration through legally binding internal market and competition rules even if Member States can only maintain a limited commitment to social inclusion, while authors defending the social models unique to the continent of Europe demand that the EU rescinds some of its established legal principles in order to make breathing space for Member States to maintain market correcting social policies. Both positions convene that there should be no genuine social policy at EU level.
This article uses scenarios of widely discussed rulings by the Court of Justice to illustrate that legally enforceable economic integration would prevent most Member States from achieving sustainable health services, labour relations and free university education on the basis of national closure. Since the EU has limited legislative competences to create EU level institutions to balance inequalities, it derives a Constitution of Social Governance from the EU’s values, proposing that the Court of Justice develops its urisprudence into an instrument for challenging European disunion induced by new EU economic governance