Policies for Social and Health Equity: The Case for Equity Sensitive Universalism; Comment on “Implementing Universal and Targeted Policies for Health Equity: Lessons From Australia”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

2 Retired from Department of Health and Human Services, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Abstract

This commentary reflects on an important article by Fisher and colleagues who draw on four Australian policy case studies to examine how universal and targeted approaches or a combination can be deployed to improve health equity. They conclude that universal approaches are central to action to increase health equity, but that targeting can improve equity of access in some situations including in the context of proportionate universalism. However, we argue that although target services may provide benefits for some populations, they are often stigmatizing and fail to reach may people they aim to support. Instead of accepting the dominant discourse about the key role for targeted approaches, we argue that those committed to reduce social and health inequities should consider the potential of Equity Sensitive Universalism (ESU). This approach focuses on achieving proportionate outcomes with equally provided resources rather than proportionate inputs and provides a ‘cohesion dividend,’ increasing social solidarity.

Keywords


  1. Bambra C. Levelling up: global examples of reducing health inequalities. Scand J Public Health. 2022;50(7):908-913. doi:1177/14034948211022428
  2. Singer M. Introduction to Syndemics: A Critical Systems Approach to Public and Community Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009.
  3. Fisher M, Harris P, Freeman T, et al. Implementing universal and targeted policies for health equity: lessons from Australia. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.157
  4. Townsend P. The Right to Social Security and National Development: Lessons from OECD Experience for Low-Income Countries. Issues in Social Protection, Discussion Paper 18. 2007. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---soc_sec/documents/publication/wcms_207741.pdf.
  5. Sen A. Development: which way now? Econ J. 1983;93(372):745-762. doi:2307/2232744
  6. Titmuss RM. Commitment to Welfare. 2nd ed. George Allen and Unwin Ltd; 1968.
  7. Gronholm PC, Nye E, Michelson D. Stigma related to targeted school-based mental health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. J Affect Disord. 2018;240:17-26. doi:1016/j.jad.2018.07.023
  8. Lapham J, Martinson ML. The intersection of welfare stigma, state contexts and health among mothers receiving public assistance benefits. SSM Popul Health. 2022;18:101117. doi:1016/j.ssmph.2022.101117
  9. Mead R, Thurston M, Bloyce D. From public issues to personal troubles: individualising social inequalities in health within local public health partnerships. Crit Public Health. 2022;32(2):168-180. doi:1080/09581596.2020.1763916
  10. How we can flush out poverty stigma from our systems and services. https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/how-we-can-flush-out-poverty-stigma-our-systems-and-services. Published January 18, 2022.
  11. Popay J, Halliday E, Mead R, et al. Communities in Control: A mixed method evaluation of the Big Local community empowerment initiative in England. NIHR Public Health Research; forthcoming.
  12. Akhter N, McGowan VJ, Halliday E, Popay J, Kasim A, Bambra C. Community empowerment and mental wellbeing: longitudinal findings from a survey of people actively involved in the big local place-based initiative in England. J Public Health (Oxf). 2022. doi:1093/pubmed/fdac073
  13. Marmot M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review. London: Institute of Health Equity; 2010.
  14. Merlo J, Wagner P, Leckie G. A simple multilevel approach for analysing geographical inequalities in public health reports: the case of municipality differences in obesity. Health Place. 2019;58:102145. doi:1016/j.healthplace.2019.102145
  15. Coote A, Percy A. The Case for Universal Basic Services. Cambridge: Polity; 2020.

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 31 October 2022
  • Receive Date: 27 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 26 October 2022
  • Accept Date: 30 October 2022
  • First Publish Date: 31 October 2022