Search

Public health laws and policies are uniquely able to mitigate the adverse and inequitable health impacts of climate change. This article summarizes some key considerations in developing such laws and policies and a variety of approaches local public health departments are using to increase climate resilience and health equity.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed social inequities that rival biological inequities in disease exposure and severity. Merely identifying some inequities without understanding all of them can lead to harmful misrepresentations and deepening disparities. Applying an 'equity lens' to bring inequities into focus without a vision to extinguish them is short-sighted. Interventions to address inequities should be as diverse as the pluralistic populations experiencing them. We present the first validated equity framework applied to COVID-19 that sheds light on the full spectrum of health inequities, navigates their sources and intersections, and directs ethically just interventions. The Equity Matrix also provides a comprehensive map to guide surveillance and research in order to unveil epidemiological uncertainties of novel diseases like COVID-19, recognising that inequities may exist where evidence is currently insufficient. Successfully applied to vaccines in recent years, this tool has resulted in the development of clear, timely and transparent guidance with positive stakeholder feedback on its comprehensiveness, relevance and appropriateness. Informed by evidence and experience from other vaccine-preventable diseases, this Equity Matrix could be valuable to countries across the social gradient to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by abating the spread of inequities. In the race to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, this urgently needed roadmap can effectively and efficiently steer global leadership towards equitable allocation with diverse strategies for diverse inequities. Such a roadmap has been absent from discussions on managing the COVID-19 pandemic, and is critical for our passage out of it., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This article offers a brief history of mental health policies that have shaped current inequities in health care financing and service delivery. Mental health has a unique position within the health care system given the pervasive nature of stigma associated with illness; race and ethnicity often amplify this burden. The acknowledgment of disparities in mental health and the development of policies that address the needs of minority groups are relatively recent phenomena. Highlighted are legislative actions that have influenced reforms of the health care landscape. This text outlines opportunities to advance a targeted, community-based approach to mental health policy development., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The National Health Policy in India mentions equity as a key policy principle and emphasises the role of affirmative action in achieving health equity for a range of excluded groups. We conducted a scoping review of literature and three multi-stakeholder workshops to better understand the available evidence on the impact of affirmative action policies in enhancing the inclusion of ethnic and religious minorities in health, education and governance in India. We consider these public services an important mechanism to enhance the social inclusion of many excluded groups. On the whole, the available empirical evidence regarding the uptake and impact of affirmative action policies is limited. Reservation policies in higher education and electoral constituencies have had a limited positive impact in enhancing the access and representation of minorities. However, reservations in government jobs remain poorly implemented. In general, class, gender and location intersect, creating inter- and intra-group differentials in the impact of these policies. Several government initiatives aimed at enhancing the access of religious minorities to public services/institutions remain poorly evaluated. Future research and practice need to focus on neglected but relevant research themes such as the role of private sector providers in supporting the inclusion of minorities, the political aspects of policy development and implementation, and the role of social mobilisation and movements. Evidence gaps also need to be filled in relation to information systems for monitoring and assessment of social disadvantage, implementation and evaluative research on inclusive policies and understanding how the pathways to inequities can be effectively addressed.

Objective: This study evaluated the effects of the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 on the use of outpatient and clinic-based mental health services and spending on those services., Methods: Data came from the 2005-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The analytic sample included adults ages 26-64 who were continuously enrolled in employer-sponsored insurance for a calendar year (N=66,602 person-year observations). A difference-in-differences study design was used to compare changes in outcomes before and after implementation of the MHPAEA between people whose insurance plan was or was not affected by the law., Results: The federal parity law was not significantly associated with changes in the likelihood of using mental health services, the amount of mental health services used, or total or out of-pocket spending for mental health services. The law was marginally significantly associated with a shift toward more use of mental health specialty services rather than primary care services among individuals who used ambulatory mental health care., Conclusions: Consistent with other research using different study designs and data, this study found that the MHPAEA had at most small effects on patterns of mental health services use and spending through 2013. Understanding whether these effects were small because most employer-sponsored plans were already parity compliant or because plans were noncompliant with the law has major implications for mental health policy and parity enforcement.

Genetic analyses provide a powerful tool with which to identify the biological components of historical objects. Te Tiriti o Waitangi | The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand's founding document, intended to be a partnership between the indigenous Māori and the British Crown. Here we focus on an archived piece of blank parchment that has been proposed to be the missing portion of the lower parchment of the Waitangi Sheet of the Treaty. However, its physical dimensions and characteristics are not consistent with this hypothesis. We perform genetic analyses on the parchment membranes of the Treaty, plus the blank piece of parchment. We find that all three parchments were made from ewes and that the blank parchment is highly likely to be a portion cut from the lower membrane of the Waitangi Sheet because they share identical whole mitochondrial genomes, including an unusual heteroplasmic site. We suggest that the differences in size and characteristics between the two pieces of parchment may have resulted from the Treaty's exposure to water in the early 20th century and the subsequent repair work, light exposure during exhibition or the later conservation treatments in the 1970s and 80s. The blank piece of parchment will be valuable for comparison tests to study the effects of earlier treatments and to monitor the effects of long-term display on the Treaty., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: For decades, insurance plans in the United States have applied more restrictive treatment limits and higher cost-sharing burdens for mental health and substance use treatments compared to physical health treatments. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) required health plans that offer mental health and substance use benefits to offer them at parity with physical health benefits starting in January 2010., Aims of the Study: To determine the effect of MHPAEA on out-of-pocket spending and utilization of outpatient specialty behavioral health services., Methods: The proportion of individuals with at least one outpatient specialty behavioral health visit, the average number of visits among those with any behavioral health visit, and the proportion of behavioral health spending paid out-of-pocket were obtained from the nationally-representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for the years 2006 to 2013. Difference-in-differences models were estimated comparing individuals with employer-sponsored insurance to those with Medicaid, Medicare, or who were uninsured., Results: Out-of-pocket share of spending was lowest among Medicaid (2.0%) and highest among the uninsured (22%), followed by the employer group (13%). Individuals in Medicaid had the highest proportion of any behavioral health visit (11%) and the uninsured had the lowest (2.4%). Among those with any behavioral health visits, the average number of visits was similar across groups. Our primary and sensitivity analyses suggest MHPAEA did not lead to changes in utilization or spending on specialty outpatient behavioral visits for individuals with employer-sponsored insurance compared to other groups., Discussion: Potential reasons for MHPAEA's apparent lack of effect are that health plans were already at parity before the law's passage, that many health plans continue to be out of compliance with the law, that concurrent changes in plans' cost-sharing blunted the law's effects, and that other barriers to behavioral health service use continue to limit utilization. While our study cannot provide direct evidence of these mechanisms, we review existing evidence in support of each of them. Our study had several limitations. We cannot test definitively whether the difference-in-differences assumption was violated or fully control for time-varying differences between groups. We attempt to address this by using multiple control groups and presenting evidence of parallel trends before MHPAEA implementation. Second, because our data do not have state identifiers, we cannot control for which states had existing mental health parity laws. Third, a nationally representative analysis may mask substantial heterogeneity for affected subgroups., Implications for Health Policies: We find no evidence MHPAEA substantially affected behavioral health utilization or out-of-pocket spending. Federal parity legislation alone is likely insufficient to address barriers to behavioral health affordability and access.

Background: Life expectancy initially improves rapidly with economic development but then tails off. Yet, at any level of economic development, some countries do better, and some worse, than expected - they either punch above or below their weight. Why this is the case has been previously researched but no full explanation of the complexity of this phenomenon is available., New Research Network: In order to advance understanding, the newly formed Punching Above Their Weight Research Network has developed a model to frame future research. It provides for consideration of the following influences within a country: political and institutional context and history; economic and social policies; scope for democratic participation; extent of health promoting policies affecting socio-economic inequities; gender roles and power dynamics; the extent of civil society activity and disease burdens., Conclusion: Further research using this framework has considerable potential to advance effective policies to advance health and equity.