Reforming the public health system in England

The abolition of Public Health England (PHE) during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about the future of the public health system in the UK, particularly in England. The two new bodies established in haste to replace PHE prompt reflection on the executive agency's fate and the need to identify any lessons to ensure that a public health system is put in place that is fit for purpose. The UK COVID-19 Inquiry provides an opportunity to make recommendations, but it will need to act quickly to avoid recommendations being ignored. Two areas of concern are highlighted in this Viewpoint: the respective remits of the new bodies and their governance arrangements. Both issues demand urgent attention if the new structures are to succeed and avoid a similar fate to that which befell PHE. But underlying these concerns is a much larger challenge arising from the UK's broken political system. The political system in the UK suffers from several systemic weaknesses, including departmentalism, poor implementation, an inability or unwillingness of those in power to listen to the truth, and chronic short-termism at the expense of long-term planning. Overhauling the UK's dysfunctional political system is a prerequisite for successfully improving the public health system

Introduction: priority setting, equitable access and public involvement in health care

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue on improving equitable access to health care through increased public and patient involvement (PPI) in prioritization decisions by discussing the conceptualization, scope and rationales of PPI in priority setting that inform the special issue. Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs a mixed-methods approach in that it provides a literature review and a conceptual discussion of the common themes emerging in the field of PPI and health priority setting. Findings – The special issue focuses on public participation that is collective in character, in the sense that the participation relates to a social, not personal, decision and is relevant to whole groups of people and not single individuals. It is aimed at influencing a decision on public policy or legal rules. The rationales for public participation can be found in democratic theory, especially as they relate to the social and political values of legitimacy and representation. Originality/value – The paper builds on previous definitions of public participation by underlining its collective character. In doing so, it develops the work by Parry, Moyser and Day by arguing that, in light of the empirical evidence presented in this issue, public participatory activities such as protests and demonstrations should no longer be labelled unconventional, but should instead be labelled as “contestatory participation”. This is to better reflect a situation in which these modes of participation have become more conventional in many parts of the world

Public health by organizational fix?

In August 2020 the UK government announced without warning the abolition of Public Health England (PHE), the principal UK agency for the promotion and protection of public health. We undertook a research programme seeking to understand the factors surrounding this decision. While the underlying issues are complex two competing interpretations have emerged: an 'official' explanation, which highlights the failure of PHE to scale up its testing capacity in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic as the fundamental reason for closing it down and a 'sceptical' interpretation, which ascribes the decision to blame-avoidance behaviour on the part of leading government figures. This paper reviews crucial claims in these two competing explanations exploring the arguments for and against each proposition. It concludes that neither is adequate and that the inability adequately to address the problem of testing (which triggered the decision to close PHE) lies deeper in the absence of the norms of responsible government in UK politics and the state. However our findings do provide some guidance to the two new organizations established to replace PHE to maximize their impact on public health. We hope that this information will contribute to the independent national COVID inquiry

Public Involvement in Health Priority Setting: Future Challenges for Policy, Research and Society

AbstractPurposeThe article reflects on the findings of this special issue and discusses the futurechallenges for policy, research and society. The findings suggest that challengesemerge as a result of legitimacy deficits of both consensus and contestatory modes of public involvement in health priority setting.Design/Methodology/ApproachThe article draws on the discussions and findings presented in this special issue. It seeks to bring the country experiences and case studies together to draw conclusions for policy, research and society.FindingsAt least two recurring themes emerge. An underlying theme is the importance, but also the challenge, of establishing legitimacy in health priority setting. The country experiences suggest that we understand very little about the conditions under which representative, or authentic, participation generates legitimacy and under which it will be regarded as insufficient. A second observation is that public participation takes a variety of forms that depend on the opportunity structures in a given national context. Given this variety the conceptualization of public participation needs to be expanded to account for the many forms of public participation.Originality/ValueThe article concludes that the challenges of public involvement are closely linked to the question of how legitimate processes and decisions can be generated in priority setting. This suggests that future research must focus more narrowly on conditions under which legitimacy are generated in order to expand our understanding of public involvement in health prioritization.KeywordsPublic participation, priority setting, legitimacy, authentic representation, equitable health coverageArticle ClassificationGeneral Revie

Incidence of type 2 diabetes after bariatric surgery: population-based matched cohort study

Background:- The effect of currently used bariatric surgical procedures on the development of diabetes in obese people is not well defined. We aimed to assess the effect of bariatric surgery on development of type 2 diabetes in a large population of obese individuals. Methods:- We did a matched cohort study of adults (age 20–100 years) identified from a UK-wide database of family practices, who were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and did not have diabetes. We enrolled 2167 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery between Jan 1, 2002, and April 30, 2014, and matched them—according to BMI, age, sex, index year, and HbA1c—with 2167 controls who had not had surgery. Procedures included laparoscopic gastric banding (n=1053), gastric bypass (795), and sleeve gastrectomy (317), with two procedures undefined. The primary outcome was development of clinical diabetes, which we extracted from electronic health records. Analyses were adjusted for matching variables, comorbidity, cardiovascular risk factors, and use of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs. Findings:- During a maximum of 7 years of follow-up (median 2·8 years [IQR 1·3–4·5]), 38 new diagnoses of diabetes were made in bariatric surgery patients and 177 were made in controls. By the end of 7 years of follow-up, 4·3% (95% CI 2·9–6·5) of bariatric surgery patients and 16·2% (13·3–19·6) of matched controls had developed diabetes. The incidence of diabetes diagnosis was 28·2 (95% CI 24·4–32·7) per 1000 person-years in controls and 5·7 (4·2–7·8) per 1000 person-years in bariatric surgery patients; the adjusted hazard ratio was 0·20 (95% CI 0·13–0·30, p<0·0001). This estimate was robust after varying the comparison group in sensitivity analyses, excluding gestational diabetes, or allowing for competing mortality risk. Interpretation:- Bariatric surgery is associated with reduced incidence of clinical diabetes in obese participants without diabetes at baseline for up to 7 years after the procedure

Affordability and Non-Perfectionism in Moral Action

One rationale policy-makers sometimes give for declining to fund a service or intervention is on the grounds that it would be ‘unaffordable’, which is to say, that the total cost of providing the service or intervention for all eligible recipients would exceed the budget limit. But does the mere fact that a service or intervention is unaffordable present a reason not to fund it? Thus far, the philosophical literature has remained largely silent on this issue. However, in this article, we consider this kind of thinking in depth. Albeit with certain important caveats, we argue that the use of affordability criteria in matters of public financing commits what Parfit might have called a ‘mistake in moral mathematics’. First, it fails to abide by what we term a principle of ‘non-perfectionism’ in moral action: the mere fact that it is practically impossible for you to do all the good that you have reason to do does not present a reason not to do whatever good you can do. And second, when used as a means of arbitrating between which services to fund, affordability criteria can lead to a kind of ‘numerical discrimination’. Various attendant issues around fairness and lotteries are also discussed

Public participation in decision-making on the coverage of new antivirals for hepatitis C.

Purpose - New hepatitis C medicines such as sofosbuvir underline the need to balance considerations of innovation, clinical evidence, budget impact and equity in health priority-setting. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of public participation in addressing these considerations. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs a comparative case study approach. It explores the experience of four countries - Brazil, England, South Korea and the USA - in making coverage decisions about the antiviral sofosbuvir and involving the public and patients in these decision-making processes. Findings - Issues emerging from public participation ac tivities include the role of the universal right to health in Brazil, the balance between innovation and budget impact in England, the effect of unethical medical practices on public perception in South Korea and the legitimacy of priority-setting processes in the USA. Providing policymakers are receptive to these issues, public participation activities may be re-conceptualized as processes that illuminate policy problems relevant to a particular context, thereby promoting an agenda-setting role for the public. Originality/value - The paper offers an empirical analysis of public involvement in the case of sofosbuvir, where the relevant considerations that bear on priority-setting decisions have been particularly stark. The perspectives that emerge suggest that public participation contributes to raising attention to issues that need to be addressed by policymakers. Public participation activities can thus contribute to setting policy agendas, even if that is not their explicit purpose. However, the actualization of this contribution is contingent on the receptiveness of policymakers.This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Emerald