Search

Background Debate continues in public health on the roles of universal or targeted policies in providing equity of access to health- related goods or services, and thereby contributing to health equity. Research examining policy implementation can provide fresh insights on these issues.Methods We synthesised findings across case studies of policy implementation in four policy areas of primary healthcare (PHC), telecommunications, Indigenous health and land use policy, which incorporated a variety of universal and targeted policy structures. We analysed findings according to three criteria of equity in access – availability, affordability and acceptability – and definitions of universal, proportionate-universal, targeted and residual policies, and devolved governance structures.Results Our analysis showed that existing universal, proportionate-universal and targeted policies in an Australian context displayed strengths and weaknesses in addressing availability, affordability and acceptability dimensions of equity in access.Conclusion While residualist policies are unfavourable to equity of access, other forms of targeting as well as universal and proportionate-universal structure have the potential to be combined in context-specific ways favourable to equity of access to health-related goods and services. To optimise benefits, policies should address equity of access in the three dimensions of availability, affordability and acceptability. Devolved governance structures have the potential to augment equity benefits of either universal or targeted policies.

BackgroundDespite growing evidence on the social determinants of health and health equity, political action has not been commensurate. Little is known about how political will operates to enact pro-equity policies or not. This paper examines how political will for pro-health equity policies is created through analysis of public policy in multiple sectors. MethodsEight case studies were undertaken of Australian policies where action was either taken or proposed on health equity or where the policy seemed contrary to such action. Telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with 192 state and non-state participants. Analysis of the cases was done through thematic analysis and triangulated with document analysis. ResultsOur case studies covered: trade agreements, primary healthcare (PHC), work conditions, digital access, urban planning, social welfare and Indigenous health. The extent of political will for pro-equity policies depended on the strength of path dependency, electoral concerns, political philosophy, the strength of economic and biomedical framings, whether elite interests were threatened and the success or otherwise of civil society lobbying. ConclusionPublic health policy actors may create political will through: determining how path dependency that exacerbates health inequities can be broken, working with sympathetic political forces committed to fairness; framing policy options in a way that makes them more likely to be adopted, outlining factors to consider in challenging the interests of elites, and considering the extent to which civil society will work in favour of equitable policies. A shift in norms is required to stress equity and the right to health.

BackgroundUniversal health coverage (UHC) is central to current international debate on health policy. The primary healthcare (PHC) system is crucial to achieving UHC, in order to address the rising incidence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) more effectively and equitably. In this paper, we examine the Australian case as a mature system of UHC and identify lessons for UHC policy to support equity of access to PHC and reduce NCDs. MethodsOur qualitative research used policy mapping and monitoring and 30 key informant interviews, and applied policy theory, to investigate the implementation of Australian PHC policy between 2008 and 2018. ResultsAlthough the Australian PHC system does support equity of access to primary medical care, other ideational, actor-centred and structural features of policy detract from the capacities of the system to prevent and manage NCDs effectively, deliver equity of access according to need, and support equity in health outcomes. These features include a dominant focus on episodic primary medical care, which is a poor model of care for NCDs, and an inequitable distribution of these services. Also, a mixed system of public and private insurance coverage in PHC contributes to inequities in access and health outcomes, driving additional NCD demand into the health system. ConclusionCountries aiming to achieve UHC to support health equity and reduce NCDs can learn from strengths and weaknesses in the Australian system. We recommend a range of ideational, actor-centred and structural features of UHC systems in PHC that will support effective action on NCDs, equity of access to care according to need, and equity in health outcomes across geographically and ethnically diverse populations.

BackgroundThere is an increasing emphasis on the importance of comprehensive primary healthcare (CPHC) in improving population health and health equity. There is, therefore, a need for a practical means to determine how comprehensive regional primary healthcare organisations (RPHCOs) are in their approach. This paper proposes a framework to provide such a means. The framework is then applied to assess the comprehensiveness of Australian RPHCOs. MethodsDrawing on a narrative review of the broader literature on CPHC versus selective primary healthcare (SPHC) and examples of international models of RPHCOs, we developed a framework consisting of the key criteria and a continuum from comprehensive to selective interventions. We applied this framework to Australian RPHCOs using data from the review of their planning documents, and survey and interviews with executive staff, managers, and board members. We used a spidergram as a means to visualise how comprehensive they are against each of these criteria, to provide a practical way of presenting the assessment and an easy way to compare progress over time. ResultsKey criteria for comprehensiveness included (1) focus on population health; (2) focus on equity of access and outcomes; (3) community participation and control; (4) integration within the broader health system; (5) inter-sectoral collaboration; and (6) local responsiveness. An examination of Australian RPHCOs using the framework suggests their approach is far from comprehensive and has become more selective over time. ConclusionThe framework and spidergram offer a practical means of gauging and presenting the comprehensiveness of RPHCOs, and to identify gaps in comprehensiveness, and changes over time.

Background Despite the value of community health systems, they have not flourished in high income countries and there are no system-wide examples in high income countries where community health is regarded as the mainstream model. Those that do exist in Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom provide examples of comprehensive primary healthcare (PHC) but are marginal to bio-medical primary medical care. The aim of this paper is to examine the factors that account for the absence of strong community health systems in high income countries, using Australia as an example.Methods Data are drawn from two Australian PHC studies led by the authors. One examined seven case studies of community health services over a five-year period which saw considerable health system change. The second examined regional PHC organisations. We conducted new analysis using the ‘three I’s’ framework (interests, institutions, ideas) to examine why community health systems have not flourished in high-income countries.Results The elements of the community health services that provide insights on how they could become the basis of an effective community health system are: a focus on equity and accessibility, effective community participation/control; multidisciplinary teamwork; and strategies from care to health promotion. Key barriers identified were: when general practitioners (GPs) were seen to lead rather than be part of a team; funding models that encourage curative services rather than disease prevention and health promotion; and professional and medical dominance so that community voices are drowned out.Conclusion Our study of the community health system in Australia indicates that instituting such a system in high income countries will require systematic ideological, political and institutional change to shift the overarching government policy environment, and health sector policies and practices towards a social model of health which allows community control, and multidisciplinary service provision.

Background Community Health Workers (CHWs) are proven to be highly effective in low- and middle-income countries with many examples of successful large-scale programs. There is growing interest in deploying CHW programs in high-income countries to address inequity in healthcare access and outcomes amongst population groups facing disadvantage. This study is the first that examines the scope and potential value of CHW programs in Australia and the challenges involved in integrating CHWs into the health system. The potential for CHWs to improve health equity is explored. Methods Academic and grey literature was searched to examine existing CHW roles in the Australian primary healthcare system. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 11 people including policymakers, program managers and practitioners, to develop an understanding of policy and practice. Results Literature on CHWs in Australia is sparse, yet combined with interview data indicates CHWs conduct a broad range of roles, including education, advocacy and basic clinical services, and work with a variety of communities experiencing disadvantage. Many, and to some extent inconsistent, terms are used for CHWs, reflecting the various strategies employed by CHWs, the characteristics of the communities they serve, and the health issues they address. The role of aboriginal health workers (AHWs) is comparatively well recognised, understood and documented in Australia with evidence on their contribution to overcoming cultural barriers and improving access to health services. Ethnic health workers assist with language barriers and increase the cultural appropriateness of services. CHWs are widely seen to be well accepted and valuable, facilitating access to health services as a trusted ‘bridge’ to communities. They work best where ‘health’ is conceived to include action on social determinants and service models are less hierarchical. Short term funding models and the lack of professional qualifications and recognition are challenges CHWs encounter. Conclusion CHWs serve a range of functions in various contexts in Australian primary healthcare (PHC) with a common, valued purpose of facilitating access to services and information for marginalised communities. CHWs offer a promising opportunity to enhance equity of access to PHC for communities facing disadvantage, especially in the face of rising chronic disease.

Background Epidemiological evidence on the social determinants of health inequity is well-advanced, but considerably less attention has been given to evaluating the impact of public policies addressing those social determinants. Methodological challenges to produce evidence on policy outcomes present a significant barrier to mobilising policy actions for health equities. This review aims to examine methodological approaches to policy evaluation of health equity outcomes and identify promising approaches for future research. Methods We conducted a systematic narrative review of literature critically evaluating policy impact on health equity, synthesizing information on the methodological approaches used. We searched and screened records from five electronic databases, using pre-defined protocols resulting in a total of 50 studies included for review. We coded the studies according to (1) type of policy analysed; (2) research design; (3) analytical techniques; (4) health outcomes; and (5) equity dimensions evaluated. Results We found a growing number of a wide range of policies being evaluated for health equity outcomes using a variety of research designs. The majority of studies employed an observational research design, most of which were cross-sectional, however, other approaches included experimental designs, simulation modelling, and meta-analysis. Regression techniques dominated the analytical approaches, although a number of novel techniques were used which may offer advantages over traditional regression analysis for the study of distributional impacts of policy. Few studies made intra-national or cross-national comparisons or collected primary data. Despite longstanding challenges of attribution in policy outcome evaluation, the majority of the studies attributed change in physical or mental health outcomes to the policy being evaluated. Conclusion Our review provides an overview of methodological approaches to health equity policy outcome evaluation, demonstrating what is most commonplace and opportunities from novel approaches. We found the number of studies evaluating the impacts of public policies on health equity are on the rise, but this area of policy evaluation still requires more attention given growing inequities