Explore the vast range of titles available.

Administrative costs are substantial in private as opposed to public systems,5 and also rise when the latter adopt market based forms.6 In public systems, it is easier to control costs and spread administrative burdens across large populations. There is even evidence, in publicly-funded systems, of vulnerable people being put off by user charges, but presenting later with more costly ailments.8 Ironically, two health systems with consistently severe challenges in controlling healthcare costs make extensive use of charges—France and the USA. Locking populations in together with respect to funding also means that, despite an element of compulsion, everyone benefits from more vocal and articulate voters who push to maintain standards.13 If we wish to solve current problems, the solutions are straightforward: spend significantly more on health and social care; integrate primary care, social care and civil society into local decision making over such spending; and, of course, solve human resource issues by rewarding staff appropriately.14 We just need the courage to raise the money to do this in way that is consistent with “from each according to ability to pay and to each according to their benefit,” recognising that the way to do it is through continued and increased taxation.

Background The role of housing as a social determinant of health is well-established, but the causal pathways are poorly understood beyond the direct effects of physical housing defects. For low-income, vulnerable households there are particular challenges in creating a sense of home in a new tenancy which may have substantial effects on health and wellbeing. This study examines the role of these less tangible aspects of the housing experience for tenants in the social and private rented sectors in west central Scotland. Methods The paper analyses quantitative data from a mixed methods, longitudinal study of tenants from three housing organisations, collected across the first year of their tenancy. The paper postulates causal hypotheses on the basis of staff interviews and then uses a Realist Research approach to test and refine these into a theoretical framework for the connections between tenants’ broader experience of housing and their health and wellbeing. Results Housing service provision, tenants’ experience of property quality and aspects of neighbourhood are all demonstrated to be significantly correlated with measures of of health and wellbeing. Analysis of contextual factors provides additional detail within the theoretical framework, offering a basis for further empirical work. Conclusions The findings provide an empirically-informed realist theoretical framework for causal pathways connecting less tangible aspects of the housing experience to health and wellbeing. Applying this within housing policy and practice would facilitate a focus on housing as a public health intervention, with potential for significant impacts on the lives of low-income and vulnerable tenants. The framework also offers a basis for further research to refine our understanding of housing as a social determinant of health.

People on low-incomes in the UK develop multiple long-term health conditions over 10 years earlier than affluent individuals. Financial diaries -new to public health- are used to explore the lived experiences of financially-vulnerable individuals, diagnosed with at least one long-term condition, living in two inner-city London Boroughs. Findings show that the health status of these individuals is a key barrier to work opportunities, undermining their income. Their precarious and uncertain financial situation, sometimes combined with housing issues, increased stress and anxiety which, in turn, contributed to further deteriorate participants’ health. Long-term health conditions limited the strategies to overcome moments of financial crisis and diarists frequently used credit to cope. Restrictions to access reliable services and timely support were connected to the progression of multiple long-term conditions. Models that integrate healthcare, public health, welfare and financial support are needed to slow down the progression from one to many long-term health conditions.

Background Engaging with the public can influence policy decisions, particularly towards more radical policy change. While established research exists exploring public perceptions on causes of health inequalities, much less exists on how to tackle health inequalities in the UK. Despite an emphasis on ‘lived experience’, currently no study has focused on how individuals with very poor health conceive of both causes of, and solutions to, health inequalities. Methods Q methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives that exist on causes of, and solutions to, health inequalities experienced in low‐income communities. Community participants living with low‐incomes and poor health (n = 20) and professional stakeholders (n = 20) from London rank ordered 34 ‘Causes’ and 39 ‘Solutions’ statements onto quasi‐normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis defined factors for both ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’. Results Analysis produced three‐factor solutions for both the ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’. ‘Causes’ are (i) ‘Systemic inequality and poverty’, (ii) ‘Ignored and marginalised communities’, (iii) ‘Precariousness, chronic stress and hopelessness’. ‘Solutions’ are (i) ‘Meeting basic needs and providing opportunities to thrive’, (ii) ‘Empowering individuals to take control’, (iii) ‘Supporting healthy choices’. No professional stakeholders aligned with ‘Ignored and marginalised communities’ while at least one community participant or professional stakeholder aligned with all other factors. Conclusion Results support the view that the public has a relatively sophisticated understanding of causes of health inequalities and help challenge assumptions held by policy actors that lay members of the public do not recognise and understand more upstream ways to respond to health inequalities. Patient or Public Contribution The public contributed to the design of the Q study. Surveys and interviews with community participants informed the development of the statement set and the statement set was also piloted with community participants and finalised based on feedback.

The most obvious thing is preparation. Better prepared countries tend to be high spenders on publicly funded health systems, with a significant proportion of that spending allocated to public health. Such systems have the capacity to fight pandemics on multiple, integrated fronts. Successive UK governments have been responsible for eroding total healthcare spending, particularly expenditure on public health, with administrations over the past 12 years being more culpable.

Background Health inequalities in the UK have proved to be stubborn, and health gaps between best and worst-off are widening. While there is growing understanding of how the main causes of poor health are perceived among different stakeholders, similar insight is lacking regarding what solutions should be prioritised. Furthermore, we do not know the relationship between perceived causes and solutions to health inequalities, whether there is agreement between professional stakeholders and people living in low-income communities or agreement within these groups. Methods Q methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives (‘subjectivities’) that exist on i) why health is worse in low-income communities (‘Causes’) and ii) the ways that health could be improved in these same communities (‘Solutions’). Purposively selected individuals ( n  = 53) from low-income communities ( n  = 25) and professional stakeholder groups ( n  = 28) ranked ordered sets of statements – 34 ‘Causes’ and 39 ‘Solutions’ – onto quasi-normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view. ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ were analysed independently, before examining correlations between perspectives on causes and perspectives on solutions. Results Analysis produced three factor solutions for both the ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’. Broadly summarised these accounts for ‘Causes’ are: i) ‘Unfair Society’, ii) ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’, iii) ‘Intergenerational hardships’ and for ‘Solutions’: i) ‘Empower communities’, ii) ‘Paternalism’, iii) ‘Redistribution’. No professionals defined (i.e. had a significant association with one factor only) the ‘Causes’ factor ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’ and the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Paternalism’. No community participants defined the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Redistribution’. The direction of correlations between the two sets of factor solutions – ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ – appear to be intuitive, given the accounts identified. Conclusions Despite the plurality of views there was broad agreement across accounts about issues relating to money. This is important as it points a way forward for tackling health inequalities, highlighting areas for policy and future research to focus on.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to unfold there is an untold number of trade-offs being made in every country around the globe. The experience in the United Kingdom and Canada to date has not seen much uptake of health economics methods. We provide some thoughts on how this could take place, specifically in three areas. Firstly, this can involve understanding the impact of lockdown policies on national productivity. Secondly, there is great importance in studying trade-offs with respect to enhancing health system capacity and the impact of the mix of private-public financing. Finally, there are key trade-offs that will continue to be made both in terms of access to testing and ventilators which would benefit greatly from economic appraisal. In short, health economics could – and we would argue most certainly should – play a much more prominent role in policy-making as it relates to the current as well as future pandemics.

Background There is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework. Methods To develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views. Results The key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff. Conclusions The integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

In this perspective paper we use publicly-available data to show that, despite much positive rhetoric in support of reforms in Scotland to integrate health and social care, these reforms, in their current state, have failed to meet their stated objectives. Rather than regress to the previous system, we propose continued evaluation of even more radical forms of such integration. This analysis, and set of future proposals, are timely given current considerations with respect to a National Care Service in Scotland and recent similar reforms in England and in other countries.