Search

The United States offers two markedly different subsidy structures for private health insurance. When covered through employer-based plans, employees and their dependents benefit from the exclusion from taxable income of the premiums. Individuals without access to employer coverage may obtain subsidies for Marketplace coverage. This paper seeks to understand how the public subsidies embedded in the privately financed portion of the U.S. healthcare system impact the payments families are required to make under both ESI and Marketplace coverage, and the implications for finance equity. Using the Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC) and Marketplace premium data, we assess horizontal and vertical equity by calculating public subsidies for and expected family spending under each coverage source and using Lorenz curves and Gini and concentration coefficients. Our study pooled the 2018 and 2019 MEPS-HC to achieve a sample size of 10,593 observations. Our simulations showed a marked horizontal inequity for lower-income families with access to employer coverage who cannot obtain Marketplace subsidies. Relative to both the financing of employer coverage and earlier Marketplace tax credits, the more generous Marketplace premium subsidies, first made available in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act, substantially increased the vertical equity of Marketplace financing. While Marketplace subsidies have clearly improved equity within the United States, we conclude with a comparison to other OECD countries highlighting the persistence of inequities in the U.S. stemming from its noteworthy reliance on employer-based private health insurance. • United States uses employer and individual private health insurance coverage. • No recent investigations of horizontal and vertical equity of U.S. private coverage. • Analysis of Gini coefficients and Lorenz curves suggests regressivity. • Public policies including insurance subsidies can reduce inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sterilization is now the most common contraceptive method used by women of in the U.S., and sterilization devices have played an important role in its increased popularity. This mixed methods study examines a random sample of 2500 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reports made between 2006 and 2017 about Essure, a sterilization device. Quantitative coding was used to examine patient problems; pain and bleeding were reported most frequently. Qualitative coding analyzed impacts of symptoms on patients' everyday lives and patients' healthcare experiences, including intimate relationships, mothering, and paid employment. Findings suggest that some patients struggled when their reported "subjective" symptoms didn't result in "objective" clinical signs of problems, and when physicians dismissed or deflected their concerns in diagnostic encounters. This paper raises important issues regarding the symptoms patients associated with Essure, the diagnosis of device-driven disease and injury, and the FDA's regulation of medical devices. • Essure patients organized to report their problems to the FDA. • Patients reported pain, bleeding, and other problems. • Providers sometimes dismissed patients complaints. • Providers who investigated patients' complaints faced difficulties in diagnosis. • Patients reported regretting having the device implanted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interactions in the healthcare system today involve an important new set of actors: evaluative health platforms (EHPs). These platforms are not neutral intermediaries, but active moderators of how patients express opinions, choose providers, and consume health-related information. This paper adds to our understanding of the varied and evolving commercial interests of EHPs and the implications these have for patient voice. We analyze 71 platforms in the USA, UK, and Germany and identify five ideal types: subscribers, analyzers, advertisers, regulators, and scammers. Each platform type enacts a unique competitive strategy through an evaluative infrastructure which constrains but also generates possibilities for patient voice. Based on our typology, we develop three contributions. First, we nuance universalizing claims about the consequences of platform capitalism by specifying the diverse strategies underpinning competition between EHPs in different countries, and showing how each strategy leads evaluative infrastructures to develop in ways that impact patient voice. Second, we show how patients can navigate the challenges of a complex EHP space by exercising their ability to choose between platforms. Finally, we outline the conditions platforms need to fulfil to become empowering. Overall, this study highlights the varied and complex relationship between platform business models and user voice, which exists not only in healthcare, but also in many other fields. • Typology of evaluative health platforms (EHPs) in the US, the UK, and Germany. • EHP business models and content moderation techniques vary considerably. • EHPs have a wide range of implications for patient voice. • More transparency and competition can help platforms increase patient empowerment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The characteristic features of 21st-century corporate capitalism – monopoly and financialization – are increasingly being recognized by public health scholars as undermining the foundations of human health. While the "vectors" through which this is occurring are well known – poverty, inequality, climate change among others – locating the root cause of this process in the nature and institutions of contemporary capitalism is relatively new. Researchers have been somewhat slow to study the relationship between contemporary capitalism and human health. In this paper, we focus on one of the leading causes of death in the United States; cancer, and empirically estimate the relationship between various measures of financialization and monopoly in the US healthcare system and cancer mortality. The measures we focus on are for the hospital industry, the health insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. Using a fixed effects model with different specifications and control variables, our analysis is at the state level for the years 2012–2019. These variables include data on population demographic controls, social and economic factors, and health behavior and clinical care. We compare Medicaid expansion states with non-Medicaid expansion states to investigate variations in state-level funded health insurance coverage. The results show a statistically significant positive correlation between the HHI index in the individual healthcare market and cancer mortality and the opioid dispensing rate and cancer mortality. • We analyze how corporate capitalism is related to cancer mortality. • Recently, corporate capitalism has become more common in the healthcare industry. • We find a correlation between hospital net revenue, profit, and cancer mortality. • There is a link between the HHI index in insurance markets and cancer mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

English-language reporting on the continuing difficulties in accessing Evusheld reflects the marginalization of immunocompromised people in discussions about the public policy response to Covid-19. Moreover, the lack of available data on global Evusheld access, particularly in low-income countries, has emerged as a key form of nonknowledge that must be redressed within public health research. Through examining how knowledge about domestic and global barriers to Evusheld access circulates, and does not circulate, within The New York Times , this paper identifies a case study of the social production of ignorance related to a key issue in the Covid-19 pandemic. Drawing on science and technology studies, the history of science and media studies, I situate these trends in the context of longer explanatory histories of nonknowledge. First, through a critical discourse analysis of the New York Times' reporting on Evusheld access in the U.S., I trace the individualizing framework evident in many articles to longstanding trends in reporting on health and illness, and to the structural marginalization of immunocompromised people in U.S. Secondly, I argue that the near-total absence of reporting on Evusheld access in low-income countries is consistent with the longstanding structural neglect of health crises in the global south. • New York Times coverage of preventative treatment Evusheld rarely discusses access barriers. • Access barriers discussed are largely logistical rather than structural. • The perspectives of immunocompromised people are rarely included in Times articles on Evusheld. • Failure to include voices from impacted communities contributes to agnogenesis. • Centering the perspectives of constituencies most impacted by a health crisis will advance health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many Latinx and Indigenous Mexican populations in the United States Southwest live in unincorporated communities in the US-Mexico borderlands called colonias. These environmental justice communities often lack basic infrastructure, including healthcare services, prompting many to seek services across the border. However, due to geopolitical factors more vulnerable caregivers are limited to utilize healthcare services in the US. This paper reports the experiences and healthcare decision-making of caregivers living in colonias in the US-Mexico border region who care for children with respiratory health conditions. This study was carried out from September to December 2020. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with Latinx and Indigenous Mexican caregivers of children with asthma or respiratory distress. Qualitative interviews elicited caregivers' perspectives on the environmental factors affecting children's chronic health conditions and use of healthcare services. The analysis employed the concept of structure vulnerability to theorize geography as a structural determinant of health for caregivers faced with making healthcare decisions for their suffering from respiratory health conditions. A survey was administered to collect basic sociodemographic information. A total of 36 caregivers participated in the study. Structural factors including unincorporated community status and government inaction intersected with social determinants of health to prompt caregivers to cross the US-Mexico border to access healthcare services in Mexico for their children. Yet, more vulnerable caregivers (i.e., those without documentation status in the US) and their children, accessing healthcare services in the US was not an option limiting caregivers' ability to meet their children's healthcare needs. In such cases, geography acts as a structural determinant of health. This study shows the importance of geography in health. Rural unincorporated colonias located in the borderlands are precariously located and lack basic critical infrastructure including healthcare access. Within such places, historically and socially marginalized populations become invisible, are subject to the health effects of environmental hazards, and are limited depending on their positionality and thus vulnerability to healthcare services. • Municipal unincorporation contributes to health disparities among Latinx families in US-Mexico borderlands. • Latinx children in colonias are disproportionately exposed to environmental toxins. • Geography acts as a structural determinant of health for Latinx families in colonias. • A binational approach to health services should be prioritized for families in the borderlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, as medical and mental health associations increasingly have expressed support for the gender-affirming care model for trans and gender expansive youth, this model has been paradoxically banned across the United States. Ban proponents have deemed the science behind gender-affirming care to be dangerously uncertain. Examining the first gender-affirming care ban for minors, Arkansas's Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act of 2021, we addressed the following two questions: 1) who are the scientists, clinicians, and political organizations that promote SAFE and similar bans?; and 2) what are the scientific arguments they make to defend SAFE in federal court? First, we developed a typology of the various "agents of scientific uncertainty" behind these bans, drawing on literature from the sociology and history of science and medicine as well as the political economy of scientific doubt. Second, we created and qualitatively analyzed a dataset featuring 375 unique citations referenced throughout federal litigation over SAFE to identify these agents of scientific uncertainty's arguments. We sorted these arguments into eight categories, which reveal how agents distorted scientific evidence and exaggerated real uncertainties and risks in gender-affirming care. This case study establishes a frame for understanding the growing prevalence and legal impact of scientific arguments against gender-affirming care. • Gender-affirming care (GAC) for minors has been increasingly banned in the U.S. • Despite growing medical support, ban proponents label GAC dangerously uncertain. • The paper outlines the scientists, clinicians, and political groups defending bans. • It also describes the scientific arguments used in litigation defending bans. • Scientific uncertainty arguments have been successful at unduly restricting GAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A rising emphasis on patient involvement in clinical research and healthcare improvement has led to the steady incorporation of patients and caregivers into this work. However, interactional factors shaping recruitment processes are not well understood. In this paper, we present a qualitative analysis of interviews with twenty-six patients, family members, engagement staff and healthcare providers who are engaged in healthcare improvement work in the United States. We focus on how stakeholders account for recruitment decisions to participate in healthcare improvement work. We find that expressions of and judgments about patients' and caregivers' cultural health capital shape providers' decisions to extend invitations to participate in healthcare improvement work. These findings extend current conceptualizations of cultural health capital beyond the clinical encounter to reveal factors shaping patient recruitment into healthcare improvement work. In theorizing how cultural health capital shapes action in this new setting, we found that healthcare providers, engagement staff, and patients/caregivers attended to different aspects of cultural health capital when accounting for why they extended or received a recruitment pitch. We further found that participating in healthcare improvement work led to a boost in cultural health capital for patients and caregivers, which they could use to develop transmissible forms of cultural health capital for less centrally involved patients and caregivers. Finally, we describe how participants in healthcare improvement collaboratives account for a lack of diversity among partners. These findings help us hypothesize the consequences of recruitment processes that rely on displays and judgments of cultural health capital and identify possibilities for change. Using the case of healthcare improvement work in Collaborative Learning Health Systems, our findings advance past work on cultural health capital in medical sociology by theorizing the role of cultural health capital in recruitment processes. • Providers recruit patients for healthcare improvement work with subjective criteria. • Providers often recruit high-resourced, privileged patients that they "vibe" with. • Partners build cultural health capital from doing healthcare improvement work. • Recruiting for cultural health capital may exclude patients from diverse backgrounds. • The role of recruitment should be considered to improve partner representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]