Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
189
result(s) for
"GREER, SCOTT L."
Sort by:
Denial and Distraction: How the Populist Radical Right Responds to COVID-19 Comment on \A Scoping Review of PRR Parties’ Influence on Welfare Policy and its Implication for Population Health in Europe\
This commentary considers the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the study of populist radical right (PRR) politicians and their influence on public health and health policy. A systematic review of recent research on the influence of PRR politicians on the health and welfare policies shows that health is not a policy arena that these politicians have much experience in. In office, their effects can be destructive, primarily because they subordinate health to their other goals. Brazil, the US and the UK all show this pattern. PRR politicians in opposition such as the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) in Austria or the Lega in Italy, said very little during the actual health crisis, but once the public no longer appeared afraid they lost no time in reactivating anti-European Union (EU) sentiments. Whether in government or in opposition, PRR politicians opted for distraction and denial. Their effects ranged from making the pandemic worse.
Journal Article
Policy Makes Politics Comment on \Modelling the Health Policy Process: One Size Fits All or Horses for Courses?\
Powell and Mannion’s review of reviews maps the landscape of health policy research, showing a number of problematic and longstanding features. This commentary focuses on the extent to which health parochialism is good for the scientific development of the literature, the extent to which a \"tournament of theories\" actually develops our understanding of health policy process, and, finally, whether circumscribed theories of the policy process might be missing some of the most important and useful findings of broader comparative politics, which focus on the ways policies create politics over time. It concludes that health parochialism and focus on a circumscribed policy process is not likely to be helpful because it distracts attention from the ways in which coalitions and institutions over time shape politics and policy, a finding explored by scholars of many sectors whose findings should influence health policy research.
Journal Article
What will Donald Trump's presidency mean for health? A scorecard
US Presidents make their mark on health, for better or worse. Donald Trump campaigned on a populist platform to “make America great again”. While the actual policies his administration will pursue—and the priority he will place on each of them—remain in many ways uncertain, both his statements and his nominations for key government posts suggest that his presidency could have profound implications for health. His proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a “better reform”, his stance on reproductive rights, and his approaches to other areas, such as science policy and climate change, coupled with his stated intention to put “America first” are creating anxiety and uncertainty about America's domestic health policies and its global leadership role in areas such as security and development. We propose criteria on which the global health community can judge the success or failure of a Trump presidency, based on a selection of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that apply to health.
Journal Article
Quantifying inequities in US federal response to hurricane disaster in Texas and Florida compared with Puerto Rico
If disaster responses vary in their effectiveness across communities, health equity is affected. This paper aims to evaluate and describe variation in the federal disaster responses to 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, compared with the need and severity of storm damage through a retrospective analysis. Our analysis spans from landfall to 6 months after landfall for each hurricane. To examine differences in disaster responses across the hurricanes, we focus on measures of federal spending, federal resources distributed and direct and indirect storm-mortality counts. Federal spending estimates come from congressional appropriations and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) records. Resource estimates come from FEMA documents and news releases. Mortality counts come from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports, respective vital statistics offices and news articles. Damage estimates came from NOAA reports. In each case, we compare the responses and the severity at critical time points after the storm based on FEMA time logs. Our results show that the federal government responded on a larger scale and much more quickly across measures of federal money and staffing to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma in Texas and Florida, compared with Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. The variation in the responses was not commensurate with storm severity and need after landfall in the case of Puerto Rico compared with Texas and Florida. Assuming that disaster responses should be at least commensurate to the degree of storm severity and need of the population, the insufficient response received by Puerto Rico raises concern for growth in health disparities and increases in adverse health outcomes.
Journal Article
What Can Be Done About the Global Far Right’s Threat to Health?
For people motivated by public health, which in the 21st century includes a clear commitment to equity and human rights, political scientists' analysis offers some lessons. Appeals to patient-centered, trustworthy, responsive health care take on a new edge if we can tell policymakers that the alternative is an increasing far-right vote in their constituency. Consider the state of Michigan, a relatively poorly educated, aging state long stuck on a weak economic trajectory. Since 2020, its voters have liberalized regulations on unions, drawn state and federal legislative districts to maximize political competitiveness, and facilitated ballot access, producing one of the country's highest rates of registration of eligible voters. AJPH ЗА See also Power, Politics, and Human Rights in Public Health, pp. 868-889.
Journal Article
The antivaccine movement threatens health in the US and worldwide
Robert F Kennedy Jr and others in the antivaccine movement are using the power of the US government to promote disinformation and flawed science, write Anna Kirkland and Scott Greer
Journal Article
What overturning Roe v. Wade means for the United States
Public health implications of banning abortion The vast majority of abortions in the United States occur in the first trimester and the procedure is safe and effective.4 In fact, at all gestational ages, abortion is much safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than white women, and Latinx women are twice as likely as whites.6 Seventy five percent of people who have abortions have low incomes or live in poverty.7 More than 60 percent have other children. The Pregnancy-Related Mortality Impact of a Total Abortion Ban in the United States: A Research Note on Increased Deaths Due to Remaining Pregnant.
Journal Article
Doctors are accountable to the GMC, but who is the GMC accountable to?
Fundamental questions need to be asked about who health regulators are accountable to, say Martin McKee and Scott L Greer
Journal Article
Health law and policy in the European Union
From its origins as six western European countries coming together to reduce trade barriers, the European Union (EU) has expanded, both geographically and in the scope of its actions, to become an important supranational body whose policies affect almost all aspects of the lives of its citizens. This influence extends to health and health services. The EU's formal responsibilities in health and health services are limited in scope, but, it has substantial indirect influence on them. In this paper, we describe the institutions of the EU, its legislative process, and the nature of European law as it affects free movement of the goods, people, and services that affect health or are necessary to deliver health care. We show how the influence of the EU goes far beyond the activities that are most visible to health professionals, such as research funding and public health programmes, and involves an extensive body of legislation that affects almost every aspect of health and health care.
Journal Article