Dangour, Alan D

Deeming, Christopher

Morris, JN

Wilkinson, Paul

English

Worldwide biomedical and social research has been establishing knowledge on key essentials of health and well-being. 1, 2 In general, this knowledge is inadequately applied in public policies, resulting in avoidable health deficits, waste of human potential and costs to society. Remedial measures plainly are required to improve living and working conditions and create social protection policy supportive of all. Formulation of the evidence into practicable ways of living and the minimal costing of these to society and to the individual is relatively straightforward, and we have so far assembled data on healthy living for two UK population groups: adults of working age and older people. We have then ascertained the minimal personal costs these currently would entail, allowing for certain social provisions. This yielded our evidence-based minimum personal income adequate for healthy living (MIHL), which may now be accepted as a definable social determinant of health and, when deficient, poses risks to health and well-being. 3 National statistics indicate that 3.6 million adults in the UK are below this defined MIHL. We submit that a national minimum to increase equality of opportunity for health via such a defined MIHL would be a practicable and readily comprehensible step to improving public health and hopefully reducing prevalent inequalities. MIHL would also provide a benchmark for health in public policy generally on criteria of poverty and safe minimal standards of living. We suggest practical measures in response to today’s challenge that arises from the knowledge on personal essentials for health that is accruing from the phenomenal modern research effort. How can we better apply this knowledge to our populations and all in them? The response at present is unarguably inadequate.Worldwide biomedical and social research has been establishing knowledge on key essentials of health and well-being. 1, 2 In general, this knowledge is inadequately applied in public policies, resulting in avoidable health deficits, waste of human potential and costs to society. Remedial measures plainly are required to improve living and working conditions and create social protection policy supportive of all. Formulation of the evidence into practicable ways of living and the minimal costing of these to society and to the individual is relatively straightforward, and we have so far assembled data on healthy living for two UK population groups: adults of working age and older people. We have then ascertained the minimal personal costs these currently would entail, allowing for certain social provisions. This yielded our evidence-based minimum personal income adequate for healthy living (MIHL), which may now be accepted as a definable social determinant of health and, when deficient, poses risks to health and well-being. 3 National statistics indicate that 3.6 million adults in the UK are below this defined MIHL. We submit that a national minimum to increase equality of opportunity for health via such a defined MIHL would be a practicable and readily comprehensible step to improving public health and hopefully reducing prevalent inequalities. MIHL would also provide a benchmark for health in public policy generally on criteria of poverty and safe minimal standards of living. We suggest practical measures in response to today’s challenge that arises from the knowledge on personal essentials for health that is accruing from the phenomenal modern research effort. How can we better apply this knowledge to our populations and all in them? The response at present is unarguably inadequate

Morris, J.N

Deeming, C

Wilkinson, P

Dangour, A.D

Explore Bristol Research

Action Towards Healthy Living for All

LSHTM Research Online

(2002b), Modest But Adequate: A Reasonable Living Standard for Households aged 65–74 years,

Agreeing poverty lines: the development of consensual budget standards methodology’, CRSP2223, Centre for Research in Social Policy,

approaches topovertylines andsocial security’,Journal ofSocial

Are we promoting health?’,

B r a d s h a w ,J .( 1972), ‘The concept of social need’,

B r a d s h a w ,J .( e d . )(

B r a d s h a w ,J .a n dF i n c h ,N .( 2003), ‘Overlaps in dimensions of poverty’,

Better policy delivery and design’, A Discussion Paper, Performance and Innovation Unit,

Budget requirements for disabled people in Jersey’, Centre for Research in Social Policy,

Budget standards for Jersey: a handbook’, CRSP359, Centre for Research in Social Policy,

Changing necessities of life, 1983–1999’,

children, living in Swansea, South Wales’, Family Budget Unit, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics,

Commentary: minimum incomes for healthy living: then, now and tomorrow?’,

Consensual approaches to poverty lines and social security’,

D a v e yS m i t h ,G . ,D o r l i n g ,D .a n dS h a w

D e a n ,H .(

D o y a l ,L .a n dG o u g h ,I .(

Development as Freedom,

Disabled People’s Costs of Living: More Than You Would Think,

F a m i l yB u d g e tU n i t( 2004a), ‘Low cost but acceptable budget for families with children,

FamilyBudget Unit(2004b),‘Lowcost but acceptablebudgetforpensioners, April 2004’,York. F r a s e r ,N .(

G o r d o n ,D . ,A d e l m a n ,L . ,A s h w o r t h ,K . ,B r a d s h a w ,J . ,L e v i t a s ,R . ,M i d d l e t o n ,S . ,P a n t a z i s

Health Association

Help with health costs for older people’ (Information Sheet IS/20), Age Concern

Horses for discourses: poverty, purpose and closure in minimum income standards policy’,

Household budgetary requirements in Jersey’, CRSP359, Center for Social Research in Social Policy,

Lists and thresholds: comparing the Doyal–Gough theory of human need with Nussbaum’s capabilities approach’, WeD Working Paper 01, ESRC Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries,

Love the work, hate the job”: Low cost but acceptable wage levels and the “exported costs” of low pay in Brighton and Hove’,

Low Cost but Acceptable Incomes for Older People: A Minimum Income Standard for Households Aged 65–74 Years in the UK, Bristol: Policy Press.

Low Cost but Acceptable: A Minimum Income Standard for the UK: Families with Young Children,

Mapping deprivation in the south west’,

Measuring child poverty: a consultation document’, London. DepartmentforWorkandPensions(2003a),‘Preliminaryconclusions:measuringchildpoverty consultation’,

Minimum incomes for healthy living (MIHL): next thrust in UK social policy?’, Policy and Politics, 32: 4, 441–54. M o r r i s ,J .N . ,D o n k i n ,A .J .M . ,W o n d e r l i n g ,D . ,W i l k i n s o n ,P .a n dD o w l e r ,E .(

Modest but adequate: summary budgets for sixteen households,

Motivation and Personality,N e wY o r k :H a r p e r&R o w .

Muddle or mendacity? The Beveridge Committee and the poverty line’,

Nutrition, education, ignorance and income: a 20th century debate’,

Oral questions and debates, 12 November’: Column 1022.

Paradigms of poverty: a rehabilitation of B.

Poor Measure?, London: The Social Market Foundation.

Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation,O x f o r d :O x f o r d

Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living, Harmondsworth:

Poverty or preference: what do “consensual deprivation indicators” really measure?’,

Professional policy making for the twenty ﬁrst century’, Report by Strategic Policy Making Team, Cabinet Ofﬁce,

Public expenditure statistical analyses 2005’, The Slchonary ofﬁce,

R o w n t r e e

R o w n t r e e ,B .S .a n dL a v e r s ,G .R .(

Social insurance and allied services’,

Social Security Committee

Social Trends 34, London: The Stationery Ofﬁce.

Somewhere over the rainbow: universality and diversity in social policy’,

States of welfare: a conceptual challenge’,

T o w n s e n d ,P .( 1954), ‘Measuring poverty’,

T o w n s e n d ,P .( 1962), ‘The meaning of poverty’,

T o w n s e n d ,P .a n dG o r d o n ,D .( 1991), ‘What is enough? New evidence on poverty allowing the deﬁnition of a minimum beneﬁt’,

Technology tracker

The National Assistance Board and the “rediscovery” of poverty’,

The necessities of life in Britain’, Working Paper No. 1,U n i v e r s i t yo fB r i s t o l .

The Problem of Human Needs and the Critique of Civilisation,L o n d o n :

Trust

Unﬁnished business: Seebohm Rowntree’s Project for British Minimum Income Standards’,

Welfare and Citizenship,L o n d o n :S a g e .

Work and Pensions (2003b), ‘Measuring child poverty’,

Action towards healthy living--for all.

Action towards healthy living--for all.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Explore Bristol Research

LSHTM Research Online