How the Spectre of Societal Homogeneity Undermines Equitable Healthcare for Refugees; Comment on “Defining and Acting on Global Health: The Case of Japan and the Refugee Crisis”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

2 Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany


Recourse to a purported ideal of societal homogeneity has become common in the context of the refugee reception crisis – not only in Japan, as Leppold et al report, but also throughout Europe. Calls for societal homogeneity in Europe originate from populist movements as well as from some governments. Often, they go along with reduced social support for refugees and asylum seekers, for example in healthcare provision. The fundamental right to health is then reduced to a citizens’ right, granted fully only to nationals. Germany, in spite of welcoming many refugees in 2015, is a case in point: entitlement and access to healthcare for asylum seekers are restricted during the first 15 months of their stay. We show that arguments brought forward to defend such restrictions do not hold, particularly not those which relate to maintaining societal homogeneity. European societies are not homogeneous, irrespective of migration. But as migration will continue, societies need to invest in what we call “globalization within.” Removing entitlement restrictions and access barriers to healthcare for refugees and asylum seekers is one important element thereof.


Main Subjects

  1. Leppold C, Ozaki A, Shimada Y, Morita T, Tanimoto T. Defining and acting on global health: the case of japan and the refugee crisis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(8):457-460. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.68
  2. Roberts B, Murphy A, McKee M. Europe’s collective failure to address the refugee crisis. Public Health Rev. 2016;37(1):1-5. doi:10.1186/s40985-016-0015-6
  3. Müller JW. Populismus: theorie und praxis. Merkur. 2015;69(8):28-37.
  4. Grove NJ, Zwi AB. Our health and theirs: forced migration, othering, and public health. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1931-1942. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.061
  5. Ooms G. Health: a Human right or a Citizen’s Right? 6th European Conference on Migrant and Minority Health; Oslo; 2016.
  6. Summary Report on the MIPEX Health Strand & Country Reports. Brussels: International Organization for Migration (IOM) Regional Office Brussels, Migration Health Division (MHD); 2016.
  7. Bozorgmehr K, Razum O. Effect of restricting access to health care on health expenditures among asylum-seekers and refugees: a quasi-experimental study in Germany, 1994–2013. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0131483. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131483
  8. Razum O, Bozorgmehr K. Restricted entitlements and access to health care for refugees and immigrants: The example of Germany. Glob Soc Policy. 2016. doi:10.1177/1468018116655267
  9. Neerup Handlos L, Kristiansen M, Norredam M. Wellbeing or welfare benefits—what are the drivers for migration? Scand J Public Health. 2016;44(2):117-119. doi:10.1177/1403494815617051
  10. Spinks H. Destination anywhere? Factors affecting asylum seekers’ choice of destination countryParliamentary Library. February 5, 2013.
  11. Neumayer E. Asylum destination choice. What makes some West European countries more attractive than others? European Union Politics. 2004;5(2):155-180. doi:10.1177/1465116504042444
  12. Castles S, Loughna S, Research WIfDE. Trends in asylum migration to industrialized countries: 1990-2001. WIDER discussion paper No. 2003/31 Published 2003.
  13. Pries L. Migration und Ankommen. Die Chancen der Flüchtlingsbewegung. Frankfurt: Campus; 2016.
  14. Razum O, Bunte A, Gilsdorf A, Ziese T, Bozorgmehr K. Gesundheitsversorgung von Geflüchteten: Zu gesicherten Daten kommen. Dtsch Arztebl International. 2016;113(4):130-133.
  15. Classen G. Das Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz und seine Novellen auf dem Prüfstand. Grenz- statt Menschenschutz? Asyl- und Flüchtlingspolitik in Europa. Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung; 2011.
  16. Ager A, Strang A. Understanding integration: a conceptual framework. J Refug Stud. 2008;21(2):166-191. doi:10.1093/jrs/fen016
  17. Bude H. Gesellschaft der Angst. 1st ed. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition; 2014.
  18. Llorente MG, Jones ER, Eriksson A, et al. Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent. Science. 2015;350(6262):820-822. doi:10.1126/science.aad2879
  19. Bade KJ, Emmer PC, Lucassen L, Oltmer J. Enzyklopädie Migration in Europa. Vom 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. Paderborn: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh; 2007.
  20. Eribon D. Rückkehr nach Reims. Suhrkamp; 2016.
  21. Green J. Transgender: why should we care? Lancet. 2016;388(10042):334-335.
  22. Razum O, Kaasch A, Bozorgmehr K. Commentary: From the primacy of safe passage for refugees to a global social policy. Int J Public Health. 2016;61(5):523-524. doi:10.1007/s00038-016-0817-9
  • Receive Date: 20 August 2016
  • Revise Date: 09 October 2016
  • Accept Date: 10 October 2016
  • First Publish Date: 01 June 2017