Become a Patron!
Emily Whelan Parento
From: Emily Whelan Parento, Health Equity, Healthy People 2020, and Coercive Legal Mechanisms as Necessary for the Achievement of Both, 58 Loyola Law Review 655 (Fall, 2012) (228 Footnotes Omitted)
In the state of nature, indeed, all men are born equal, but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the laws.
Although health equity was not a part of seventeenth-century political discourse, Montesquieu accurately captured the conflict that surrounds the concept today. In theory, people are born with equal potential for healthy lives, yet the minute their lives begin, a confluence of factors render some people immensely more likely than others to have the capability to lead healthy lives. These disparities in individuals' capabilities to achieve good health raise important social justice questions--What obligation does society have to take measures to reduce health disparities based on race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), gender, sexual orientation, education, disability, and other factors, particularly where behavioral risk factors are a contributing factor to disease? Stated differently, how much “choice” do individuals truly possess regarding their health, and what can and should government do to address the societal influences that negatively impact health status?
Routinely, society looks at an individual health outcome and ascribes the result to modifiable lifestyle choices, good or bad, with the implicit assumption that people who are healthy deserve praise for their responsible choices and those who are not deserve at least partial blame for failing to act in ways that would improve their health. However, this personal responsibility framework fails at a population level. It is well-documented that there is a socioeconomic gradient to health, in which individuals are likely to be healthier as their socioeconomic status increases. But no serious scholar ascribes population level socioeconomic health disparities to the superior willpower of the wealthy in making healthy lifestyle choices. Similarly, there is a persistent racial and ethnic component to health that is not explained by other factors, pursuant to which certain racial and ethnic groups are more likely to have worse health outcomes than others. But no one argues that African-Americans have worse health outcomes on average than whites because African-Americans are not as motivated as whites to protect their health. There is no basis for making such population-wide generalities about motivation regarding health behavior. Yet in the face of these widespread and presumptively inequitable disparities, the law has done little. This paper argues that coercive legal mechanisms are an essential element of eliminating health disparities and achieving health equity. Moreover, the paper argues that Healthy People 2020 (HP 2020), which is the nation's “master blueprint for health” and explicitly seeks to achieve health equity, has not fully incorporated the principles of health equity in the formulation of its objectives and indicators because HP 2020 fails to recognize the varying distributive effects of policies that could achieve population health targets. To truly incorporate the principles of health equity, HP 2020 should advocate for those demonstrably effective coercive legal mechanisms that would both achieve its population health objectives and reduce health disparities.
The federal government has monitored health disparities in one form or another since at least 1985 and has advocated for the elimination of health disparities since at least 2000, with the release of the Healthy People 2010 goals. However, decisive action on the reduction of disparities has been lacking, and, on average, disparities have not improved over at least the past fifteen years. Although health equity is a mainstay of health law and policy discourse, the concept has not had a significant role in mainstream political discussions. As it is commonly understood, health equity exists when “all people have an equal opportunity to develop and maintain their health, through fair and just access to resources for health.” There are strong philosophical and social justice reasons that support government action to reduce disparities--among them are human rights principles of equality underlying the right to health; Nussbaum's theory of health as an essential human capability necessary to fully function in life; Amartya Sen's theory of the capability for health as an instrumental human freedom; and principles of equality and nondiscrimination among people based on characteristics such as SES, race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, rural/urban geography, and other characteristics historically linked to discriminatory treatment.
The question, then, is, What means are both necessary and effective for reducing health disparities and achieving health equity? It is here that distributive consequences of policies become important, leading to the conclusion that coercive legal mechanisms such as direct regulation and taxation are essential to a serious strategy to reduce disparities. While coercive legal mechanisms are not suited to solve every problem and must always be balanced against concern for personal liberties and principles of autonomy, there are many instances in which coercive legal mechanisms are demonstrably the most effective way of reducing health disparities and improving population health. Unfortunately, when discussing these mechanisms, advocates are often cowed by advocates of “personal choice” into watering down interventions to the point that the likely result is--even with an improvement in population health--no change or a worsening in health disparities. This approach is problematic from a health equity standpoint, given that health equity by its nature requires the elimination of health disparities associated with social disadvantage.
The U.S. government has made the achievement of health equity and the elimination of health disparities a national priority in HP 2020, recognizing the importance of working toward the realization of health equity. Every ten years since 1979, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issues new “Healthy People” nationwide health goals for the forthcoming decade, the most recent of which are HP 2020. The essential aim of the Healthy People project (the Project) is to establish national health priorities by setting targets for improvement of health across a broad spectrum of topics, ranging from access to health services to environmental health to more discrete diseases such as cancer and heart disease and, for the first time in HP 2020, including the social determinants of health. In some instances, HP 2020 advocates the adoption of specific coercive legal mechanisms that would both further a population health goal and reduce disparities--for example, passage of smoke-free legislation would both reduce overall population exposure to secondhand smoke and more strongly affect disadvantaged groups (who have higher rates of smoking and are more likely to work in places where smoking is permitted), thereby resulting in a reduction in the disparity in rates of exposure to secondhand smoke. This advocacy is laudable. However, in most instances, HP 2020 chooses to set broad, population-based targets for health measures without expressing a preference between means of achieving those targets, as in the case of access to health insurance coverage, where HP 2020 sets a target of 100% coverage without acknowledging the obvious--that there is no evidence that anything other than a coercive legal mechanism is a realistic way to achieve that goal.
The determination of which coercive legal mechanisms HP 2020 supports appears to be made not on the ground of epidemiological evidence of a policy's effectiveness; rather, HP 2020 seems to be willing to advocate for direct regulation only in areas that are relatively politically uncontroversial, such as helmet laws and certain tobacco control measures. This paper argues that a true internalization of the principles of health equity requires that HP 2020 acknowledge the predictably different distributive consequences of various policy interventions and urge the adoption of those coercive legal mechanisms that are demonstrably effective in reducing health disparities. Without such a framework under which to operate, the likely result is that, even if overall population health improves, health disparities will widen between the most vulnerable population groups and the already advantaged, or remain essentially stagnant, as they did under HP 2010.
More broadly, this paper argues that health equity demands the use of coercive legal mechanisms in certain circumstances given the existence of current disparities and the evidence of effectiveness of direct regulation as compared to its alternatives. This is true for a number of reasons, including that purely voluntary policy initiatives often result in little impact on the most vulnerable populations (e.g., in the case of trans fat initiatives, discussed infra Part III.B.3), and because market-based initiatives have failed to adequately account for the health needs of certain population groups (as in the case of access to health services, discussed infra Part III.B.1). Only with a candid assessment and acceptance of the critical role that coercive legal mechanisms play in furthering population health can progress be made toward the achievement of the HP 2020 goals and ultimately, health equity. Part II of this paper discusses health equity in the U.S. and how HP 2020 incorporates health equity into its goals. Part III discusses the importance of law in public health and health equity and uses specific HP 2020 goals and objectives as examples of the essential role of coercive legal mechanisms in achieving those goals while also furthering health equity. Part IV proposes certain additional legal mechanisms that could inform selection of strategies for achieving the HP 2020 goals and health equity, including the use of a “health in all policies” approach to government, the use of health impact assessments in policymaking, and the use of various indices to measure the effects of various policies and assess progress toward disparities reduction.