The emergence of the social determinants of health on the policy agenda in Britain: A case study, 1980--2003

Numerous theories have been advanced in the effort to explain how a given policy issue manages to take root in the public sphere and subsequently move forward on the public legislative agenda—or not. This study examined how the social determinants of health (SDOH) came to be part of the legislative policy agenda in Britain from 1980 to 2003. ^ The specific objectives of the research were: (1) to conduct a sociopolitical analysis grounded in alternative agenda-setting theories to identify the factors responsible for moving the social determinants health perspective onto the British policy agenda; and (2) to determine which of the theories and related dimensions best accounted for the emergence of this perspective. ^ A triangulated content and context analysis of British news articles, historical accounts, and research commentaries of the SDOH movement was conducted guided by relevant agenda-setting theories set within a social movement framework to chronicle the emergence of the SDOH as a significant policy issue in Britain. ^ The most influential social movement and agenda setting elements in the emergence of the SDOH in Britain were issue generation tactics, framing efforts, mobilizing structures, and political opportunities grounded in social movement and agenda setting theories. Policy content or the details of the policy had comparatively little impact on the successful emergence of the SDOH. Despite resistance by the government, from 1980 to 1996 interest groups created a political understanding of the SDOH utilizing a framing package encompassing notions of inequality, fairness, and justice. This frame transmitted a powerful idea connected to a core set of British values and beliefs. After 1996, a shift in political opportunities cemented the institutional arrangements needed to sustain an environment conducive to the development and implementation of SDOH policies and programs. ^ This research demonstrates that the U.S. emergence of the SDOH on the policy agenda will depend upon: (1) U.S. ideals and values regarding poverty, inequality, race, health, and health care that will determine issue framing; (2) political opportunities that will emerge—or not—to advance the SDOH policy agenda; and (3) the mobilizing structures that support or oppose the issue. ^

Strange bedfellows: The ethics and politics of medical futility in Texas

Background: Futile medical treatments are interventions that are not associated with a benefit to the patient. The definition and concept of medical futility are controversial. The Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) was passed in 1999 to address medically inappropriate interventions by allowing providers to withdraw inappropriate interventions against a surrogate decision maker's wishes following a review, attempt to transfer the patient, and 10-day waiting period. The original legislation was a negotiated compromise by players across the political spectrum. However, in recent years there has been increasing controversy regarding TADA and attempts to alter its applicability in Texas. ^ Purpose: The purpose of this project was to apply Paul Sabatier's advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to gain understanding into the historical, ethical, and political basis of the initial compromise, and determine the sources of conflict that have led to increased opposition to TADA. ^ Methods: Using the ACF model, key actors within the medical futility policy debate in Texas were aggregated into coalitions based on shared beliefs. A narrative summary based analysis identified the core elements of the policy subsystem, as well as the constraints and resources of the subsystem actors. Externalities that promoted adjustments to coalition beliefs and tactics used by coalition participants were analyzed. Data sources included review of the published literature regarding medical futility, as well as analysis of published newspaper accounts and editorials regarding the medical futility issue in Texas, legislative testimony, and review of weblogs and online commentaries dealing with the issue. ^ Results: Primary coalition participants in developing compromise legislation in 1999 were the Providers and Vitalists, with Autonomists gaining a prominent role starting in 2006. Internal factors associated with the breakdown of consensus included changes to the makeup of the governing coalition and changes in individual case information available to the Vitalist coalition. Externalities related to the intertwining of the Sun Hudson case and the Terri Schiavo case generated negative publicity for the TADA from progressive and conservative viewpoints. Dissemination of information in various venues regarding contentious cases was associated with more polarization of viewpoints, and realignment of coalition alliances. ^ Conclusions: The ACF provided an outline for the initial compromise over the creation of the Texas Advance Directives Act as well as the eventual loss of consensus. The debate between the Provider, Vitalist, and Autonomist coalitions has been affected by internal policy evolution, changes in the governing coalition, and important externalities. The debate over medical futility in Texas has had much broader implications in the dispute over Health Care Reform.^