Prospects for progress on health inequalities in England in the post-primary care trust era : professional views on challenges, risks and opportunities

Background - Addressing health inequalities remains a prominent policy objective of the current UK government, but current NHS reforms involve a significant shift in roles and responsibilities. Clinicians are now placed at the heart of healthcare commissioning through which significant inequalities in access, uptake and impact of healthcare services must be addressed. Questions arise as to whether these new arrangements will help or hinder progress on health inequalities. This paper explores the perspectives of experienced healthcare professionals working within the commissioning arena; many of whom are likely to remain key actors in this unfolding scenario. Methods - Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 professionals involved with health and social care commissioning at national and local levels. These included representatives from the Department of Health, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities, Local Authorities, and third sector organisations. Results - In general, respondents lamented the lack of progress on health inequalities during the PCT commissioning era, where strong policy had not resulted in measurable improvements. However, there was concern that GP-led commissioning will fare little better, particularly in a time of reduced spending. Specific concerns centred on: reduced commitment to a health inequalities agenda; inadequate skills and loss of expertise; and weakened partnership working and engagement. There were more mixed opinions as to whether GP commissioners would be better able than their predecessors to challenge large provider trusts and shift spend towards prevention and early intervention, and whether GPs’ clinical experience would support commissioning action on inequalities. Though largely pessimistic, respondents highlighted some opportunities, including the potential for greater accountability of healthcare commissioners to the public and more influential needs assessments via emergent Health & Wellbeing Boards. Conclusions - There is doubt about the ability of GP commissioners to take clearer action on health inequalities than PCTs have historically achieved. Key actors expect the contribution from commissioning to address health inequalities to become even more piecemeal in the new arrangements, as it will be dependent upon the interest and agency of particular individuals within the new commissioning groups to engage and influence a wider range of stakeholders.</p

How can medical schools contribute to bringing about health equity?

The role of medical schools is in a process of change. The World Health Organization has declared that they can no longer be ivory towers whose primary focus is the production of specialist physicians and cutting edge laboratory research. They must also be socially accountable and direct their activities towards meeting the priority health concerns of the areas they serve. The agenda must be set in partnership with stakeholders including governments, health care organisations and the public.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; The concept of social accountability has particular resonance for the Bar Ilan Faculty of Medicine in the Galilee, Israel’s newest medical school, which was established with a purpose of reducing health inequities in the Region. As a way of exploring and understanding the issues, discussions were held with international experts in the field who visited the Galilee. A symposium involving representatives from other medical schools in Israel was also held to extend the discourse. Deliberations that took place are reported here.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; The meaning of social accountability was discussed, and how it could be achieved. Three forms of action were the principal foci – augmentation of the medical curriculum, direct action through community engagement and political advocacy. A platform was set for taking the social accountability agenda forward, with the hope that it will impact on health inequalities in Israel and contribute to discussions elsewhere

Health Equity Indicators for the English NHS: a longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level

Background: Inequalities in health-care access and outcomes raise concerns about quality of care and justice, and the NHS has a statutory duty to consider reducing them. Objectives: The objectives were to (1) develop indicators of socioeconomic inequality in health-care access and outcomes at different stages of the patient pathway; (2) develop methods for monitoring local NHS equity performance in tackling socioeconomic health-care inequalities; (3) track the evolution of socioeconomic health-care inequalities in the 2000s; and (4) develop ‘equity dashboards’ for communicating equity findings to decision-makers in a clear and concise format. Design: Longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level. Setting: England from 2001/2 to 2011/12. Participants: A total of 32,482 small-area neighbourhoods (lower-layer super output areas) of approximately 1500 people. Main outcome measures: Slope index of inequality gaps between the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in England, adjusted for need or risk, for (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) inpatient hospital waiting time, (4) emergency hospitalisation for chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, (5) repeat emergency hospitalisation in the same year, (6) dying in hospital, (7) mortality amenable to health care and (8) overall mortality. Data sources: Practice-level workforce data from the general practice census (indicator 1), practice-level Quality and Outcomes Framework data (indicator 2), inpatient hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics (indicators 3–6) and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (indicators 6–8). Results: Between 2004/5 and 2011/12, more deprived neighbourhoods gained larger absolute improvements on all indicators except waiting time, repeat hospitalisation and dying in hospital. In 2011/12, there was little measurable inequality in primary care supply and quality, but inequality was associated with 171,119 preventable hospitalisations and 41,123 deaths amenable to health care. In 2011/12, > 20% of Clinical Commissioning Groups performed statistically significantly better or worse than the England equity benchmark. Limitations: General practitioner supply is a limited measure of primary care access, need in deprived neighbourhoods may be underestimated because of a lack of data on multimorbidity, and the quality and outcomes indicators capture only one aspect of primary care quality. Health-care outcomes are adjusted for age and sex but not for other risk factors that contribute to unequal health-care outcomes and may be outside the control of the NHS, so they overestimate the extent of inequality for which the NHS can reasonably be held responsible. Conclusions: NHS actions can have a measurable impact on socioeconomic inequality in both health-care access and outcomes. Reducing inequality in health-care outcomes is more challenging than reducing inequality of access to health care. Local health-care equity monitoring against a national benchmark can be performed using any administrative geography comprising ≥ 100,000 people

Do early life cognitive ability and self-regulation skills explain socio-economic inequalities in academic achievement? An effect decomposition analysis in UK and Australian cohorts

SSocio-economic inequalities in academic achievement emerge early in life and are observed across the globe. Cognitive ability and “non-cognitive” attributes (such as self-regulation) are the focus of many early years’ interventions. Despite this, little research has compared the contributions of early cognitive and self-regulation abilities as separate pathways to inequalities in academic achievement. We examined this in two nationally representative cohorts in the UK (Millennium Cohort Study, n = 11,168; 61% original cohort) and Australia (LSAC, n = 3028; 59% original cohort). An effect decomposition method was used to examine the pathways from socio-economic disadvantage (in infancy) to two academic outcomes: ‘low’ maths and literacy scores (based on bottom quintile) at age 7–9 years. Risk ratios (RRs, and bootstrap 95% confidence intervals) were estimated with binary regression for each pathway of interest: the ‘direct effect’ of socio-economic disadvantage on academic achievement (not acting through self-regulation and cognitive ability in early childhood), and the ‘indirect effects’ of socio-economic disadvantage acting via self-regulation and cognitive ability (separately). Analyses were adjusted for baseline and intermediate confounding. Children from less advantaged families were up to twice as likely to be in the lowest quintile of maths and literacy scores. Around two-thirds of this elevated risk was ‘direct’ and the majority of the remainder was mediated by early cognitive ability and not self-regulation. For example in LSAC: the RR for the direct pathway from socio-economic disadvantage to poor maths scores was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.17–1.79). The indirect effect of socio-economic disadvantage through cognitive ability (RR = 1.13 [1.06–1.22]) was larger than the indirect effect through self-regulation (1.05 [1.01–1.11]). Similar patterns were observed for both outcomes and in both cohorts. Policies to alleviate social inequality (e.g. child poverty reduction) remain important for closing the academic achievement gap. Early interventions to improve cognitive ability (rather than self-regulation) also hold potential for reducing inequalities in children's academic outcomes.Anna Pearce, Alyssa C.P. Sawyer, Catherine R. Chittleborough Murthy N. Mittinty Catherine Law, John W. Lync

Disparities in diabetes care: role of the patient's socio-demographic characteristics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The commitment to promoting equity in health is derived from the notion that all human beings have the right to the best attainable health. However, disparities in health care are well-documented. The objectives were to explore disparities in diabetes prevalence, care and control among diabetic patients. The study was conducted by Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS), an Israeli HMO (health care plan).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective study. The dependent variables were diabetes prevalence, uptake of follow-up examinations, and disease control. The independent variables were socio-economic rank (SER), ethnicity (Arab vs non Arab), supplementary voluntary health insurance (SVHI), and immigration from Former Soviet Union (FSU) countries. Chi Square and Logistic Regression Models were estimated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We analyzed 74,953 diabetes patients. Diabetes was more prevalent in males, lower SER patients, Arabs, immigrants and owners of SVHI. Optimal follow up was more frequent among females, lower SERs patients, non Arabs, immigrants and SVHI owners. Patients who were female, had higher SERs, non Arabs, immigrants and SVHI owners achieved better control of the disease. The multivariate analysis revealed significant associations between <it>optimal follow up </it>and age, gender (males), SER (Ranks 1-10), Arabs and SVHI (OR 1.02, 0.95, 1.15, 0.85 and 1.31, respectively); <it>poor diabetes control </it>(HbA1C > 9 gr%) was significantly associated with age, gender (males), Arabs, immigrants, SER (Ranks1-10) and SVHI (OR 0.96, 1.26, 1.38, 0.72, 1.37 and 0.57, respectively); significant associations with <it>LDL control </it>(< 100 gr%) were revealed for age, gender (males) and SVHI (OR 1.02, 1.30 and 1.44, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Disparities in diabetes prevalence, care and control were revealed according to population sub-group. MHS has recently established a comprehensive strategy and action plan, aimed to reduce disparities among members of low socioeconomic rank and Arab ethnicity, sub-groups identified in our study as being at risk for less favorable health outcomes.</p

Ethnicity, gender, deprivation and low educational attainment in England: Political arithmetic, ideological stances and the deficient society

Attainment data on England’s school pupils are more extensive in coverage, detail, quantity, accessibility and of higher quality than monitoring statistics routinely available in other European countries. These data facilitate investigation of low attainment in England’s schools and its relationship to ethnicity, gender and poverty. This article reviews longitudinal sample studies and extends this with simpler presentations of England’s national attainment statistics for education over 5 years up to 2014. The analyses show recurrent correlations of low attainment with specific ethnic minority groups, with gender and most strongly with low-income sections of society. There is a strong case, from these data and other research, that these inequalities are rooted in social and economic factors outside the school, created and sustained by neoliberal economic practices and elitist structures. It is argued that reducing the proportion of children growing up in poverty will have a bigger impact on raising average attainment levels than focusing on in-school factors

Building Children and Young People&#039;s Resilience in Schools

Evidence Review 2 - Building children and young people\u27s resilience in schools Briefing 2 - Building children and young people\u27s resilience in schools This pair of documents, commissioned by Public Health England, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, address the role of schools in building children and young people&rsquo;s resilience and capabilities. They provide a summary of evidence about the effect of resilience on health, the unequal distribution of resilience and its contribution to levels of health inequalities. The review outlines the potential actions that can be taken in schools in order to build resilience for all children and young people and reduce inequalities in resilience. Throughout, a social determinants approach to resilience is taken. Children and young people&rsquo;s individual characteristics are seen as shaped by, and related to, inequities in power, money and resources, and the conditions in which they are born, grow, live, and in which they will work and age. Family and community resilience are highly significant and similarly shaped by wider social and economic factors. The full evidence review and a shorter summary briefing are available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the &lsquo;Local Action on health inequalities&rsquo; project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page

Fuel Poverty and Cold Home-related Health Problems

Evidence Review 7 - Tackling fuel poverty and cold home-related health problems Briefing 7 - Fuel poverty and cold home-related health problems This pair of documents, commissioned by Public Health England, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, address the health impacts of fuel poverty and cold homes. These documents provide an overview of fuel poverty, describing the evidence linking fuel poverty, cold homes, and poor health outcomes. They examine the scale of the problem across England and trends over time. Evidence shows that living in cold homes is associated with poor health outcomes and an increased risk of morbidity and mortality for all age groups. The documents also provide a brief overview of national policy and sets out the role of local authorities and potential interventions at local level. Fuel poverty is not just about poverty, but also about the quality of England&rsquo;s housing stock and energy efficiency. The review discusses some of the interventions that have been implemented at the local level to help people on low incomes during cold weather and to address cold home-related health problems. The full evidence review and a shorter summary briefing are available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the &lsquo;Local Action on health inequalities&rsquo; project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page

Health Inequalities and the Living Wage

Evidence Review 6 - Health inequalities and the living wage Briefing 6 - Health inequalities and the living wage This pair of documents, commissioned by Public Health England, and written by the UCL Institute of Health Equity, address the role of a minimum income in improving health. These papers provide a summary of evidence on the health impacts of living on a low income. They assess the evidence around how the living wage addresses low incomes, health and health inequalities. The living wage is an hourly minimum wage, optional for employers, calculated according to the basic cost of living. Local authorities and other organisations that have implemented the living wage for their staff are presented as case study interventions to show how it is possible, the challenges faced and how they were overcome and any reported income, health and business benefits. The full evidence review and a shorter summary briefing are available to download above. This document is part of a series. An overview document which provides an introduction to this and other documents in the series, and links to the other topic areas, is available on the &lsquo;Local Action on health inequalities&rsquo; project page. A video of Michael Marmot introducing the work is also available on our videos page