The welfare state determinants of health: Implications of regimes and pathways

Background. Population health within and between nations is heavily influenced by political determinants, yet these determinants have received significantly less attention than socioeconomic factors in public health. It has been hypothesized that the welfare state, as a political variable, may play a particularly prominent role in affecting both health indicators and health disparities in developed countries. The research, however, provides conflicting evidence regarding the health impact of particular regimes over others and the mechanisms through which the welfare state can most significantly affect health.^ Objective. To perform a systematic review of the literature as a means of exploring what the current research indicates regarding the benefits or detriments of particular regimes styles and the pathways through which the welfare state can impact heath indicators and health disparities within developed countries.^ Methods. A thorough search of the EBSCO, Pubmed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases was conducted and resulted in the identification of 15 studies that evaluated the association between welfare state regime and population health outcomes, and/or pathways through with the welfare state influences health. ^ Results. Social democratic countries tended to perform best when infant mortality rate (IMR) was the primary outcome of interest, whereas liberal countries performed strongly in relation to self perceived health. The results were mixed regarding welfare state effectiveness in mitigating health inequities, with Christian democratic countries performing as well as social democratic countries. In relation to welfare state pathways, public health spending and medical coverage were associated with positive health indicators. Redistributive impact of the welfare state was also consistently associated with better health outcomes while social security expenditures were not.^ Discussion/Conclusions. Studies consistently discovered a significant relationship between the welfare state and population health and/or health disparities, lending support to the hypothesis that the welfare state is, indeed, an important non-medical determinant of health. However, it is still fairly unclear which welfare state regime may be most protective for health, as results varied according to the measured health indicator. The research regarding welfare state pathways is particularly undeveloped, and does not provide much insight into the importance of in-kind service provision or cash transfers, or targeted or universal approaches to the welfare state. Suggestions to direct future research are provided.^

The impact of 1995--1996 health sector reforms in the effectiveness of malaria control program in the state of Orissa, India

Malaria poses a significant public health problem worldwide. The World Health Organization indicates that approximately 40% of the world's population and almost 85% of the population from the South–East Asian region is at risk of contracting malaria. India being the most populous country in the region, contributes the highest number of malaria cases and deaths attributed to malaria. Orissa is the state that has the highest number of malaria cases and deaths attributable to malaria. A secondary data analysis was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the World bank-assisted Malaria Action Program in the state of Orissa under the health sector reforms of 1995-96. The secondary analysis utilized the government of India's National Anti Malaria Management Information System's (NAMMIS) surveillance data and the National Family Health Survey (NFHS–I and NFHS–II) datasets to compare the malaria mortality and morbidity in the state between 1992-93 and 1998-99. Results revealed no effect of the intervention and indicated an increase of 2.18 times in malaria mortality between 1992-1999 and an increase of 1.53 times in malaria morbidity between 1992-93 and 1998-99 in the state. The difference in the age-adjusted malaria morbidity in the state between the time periods of 1992-93 and 1998-99 proved to be highly significant (t = 4.29 df=16, p<. 0005) whereas the difference between the increase of age-adjusted malaria morbidity during 1992-93 and 1998-99 between Orissa (with intervention) and Bihar (no intervention) proved to be non significant (t=.0471 df=16, p<.50). Factors such as underutilization of World Bank funds for the malaria control program, inadequate health care infrastructure, structural adjustment problems, poor management, poor financial management, parasite resistance to anti-malarial drugs, inadequate supply of drugs and staff shortages may have contributed to the failure of the program in the state.^

For Safety’s Sake: A Case Study of School Security Efforts and Their Impact on Education Reform

Several studies have shown that the need to create safe and orderly schools has increasingly been addressed in a manner that disconnects these priorities from broader concerns related to student success, school culture, and child development. In this paper, we explore the consequences of expanding security procedures in response to an incident involving interracial conflict at an urban high school in the United States. We offer this case study to demonstrate how the primacy placed on safety and security resulted in the neglect of other important educational goals, such as academic engagement and a positive school culture. Through an analysis of observational, interview, focus group, and survey data, we show that while it is essential for schools to take measures that ensure the safety of students and staff, it is equally important for safety to be recognized as part of a larger set of goals that schools must concurrently pursue in order to meet the educational and developmental needs of the students they serve.

Commentary on: "For Safety's Sake: A Case Study of School Security Efforts and Their Impact on Education Reform"

Invited commentary on the article "For Safety’s Sake: A Case Study of School Security Efforts and their Impact on Education Reform" by Rachel Garver and Pedro Noguera.

Policy analysis of shifting to the state-run Texas women's health program

During the 82nd Texas legislature, state leaders passed a provision stating that healthcare providers, who perform, promote, or affiliate with providers who perform or promote elective abortion services may not be eligible to participate in the Texas Medicaid Women's Health Program (WHP). The federal government reacted to this new provision by vowing to eliminate its 90% share of program support on the grounds that the provision violated a patient's freedom to choose a provider; a right protected by the Social Security Act. Texas leaders stated that the Women's Health Program would continue without federal support, financed exclusively with state funds.^ The following policy analysis compares the projected impact of the current Medicaid Women's Health Program to the proposed state-run program using the criteria-alternative matrix framework. The criteria used to evaluate the program alternatives include population affected, unintended pregnancy and abortion impact, impact on cervical cancer rate, and state-level government expenditures. Each criterion was defined by selected measures. The population affected was measured by the number of women served in the programs. Government expenditures were measured in terms of payments for program costs, Medicaid delivery costs, and cervical cancer diagnostic costs. Unintended pregnancy impact was measured by the number of projected unplanned pregnancies and abortions under each alternative. The impact on cervical cancer was projected in terms of the number of new cervical cancer cases under each alternative. Differences in the projections with respect to each criterion were compared to assess the impact of shifting to the state-only policy.^ After examining program alternatives, it is highly recommended that Texas retain the Medicaid WHP. If the state does decide to move forward with the state-run WHP, it is recommended that the program run at its previous capacity. Furthermore, for the purpose of addressing the relatively high cervical cancer incidence rate in Texas, incorporating HPV vaccination coverage for women ages 18-26 as part of the Women's Health Program is recommended.^