Annual Review of Public Health - Volume 32, 2011

The high rate of premature births in the United States remains a public health concern. These infants experience substantial morbidity and mortality in the newborn period, which translate into significant medical costs. In early childhood, survivors are characterized by a variety of health problems, including motor delay and/or cerebral palsy, lower IQs, behavior problems, and respiratory illness, especially asthma. Many experience difficulty with school work, lower health-related quality of life, and family stress. Emerging information in adolescence and young adulthood paints a more optimistic picture, with persistence of many problems but with better adaptation and more positive expectations by the young adults. Few opportunities for prevention have been identified; therefore, public health approaches to prematurity include assurance of delivery in a facility capable of managing neonatal complications, quality improvement to minimize interinstitutional variations, early developmental support for such infants, and attention to related family health issues.

In the United States, awareness is increasing that medical care alone cannot adequately improve health overall or reduce health disparities without also addressing where and how people live. A critical mass of relevant knowledge has accumulated, documenting associations, exploring pathways and biological mechanisms, and providing a previously unavailable scientific foundation for appreciating the role of social factors in health. We review current knowledge about health effects of social (including economic) factors, knowledge gaps, and research priorities, focusing on upstream social determinants—including economic resources, education, and racial discrimination—that fundamentally shape the downstream determinants, such as behaviors, targeted by most interventions. Research priorities include measuring social factors better, monitoring social factors and health relative to policies, examining health effects of social factors across lifetimes and generations, incrementally elucidating pathways through knowledge linkage, testing multidimensional interventions, and addressing political will as a key barrier to translating knowledge into action.

Achieving health equity, driven by the elimination of health disparities, is a goal of Healthy People 2020. In recent decades, the improvement in health status has been remarkable for the U.S. population as a whole. However, racial and ethnic minority populations continue to lag behind whites with a quality of life diminished by illness from preventable chronic diseases and a life span cut short by premature death. We examine a conceptual framework of three generations of health disparities research to understand (a) data trends, (b) factors driving disparities, and (c) solutions for closing the gap. We propose a new, fourth generation of research grounded in public health critical race praxis, utilizing comprehensive interventions to address race, racism, and structural inequalities and advancing evaluation methods to foster our ability to eliminate disparities. This new generation demands that we address the researcher's own biases as part of the research process.

The baby-boom generation will reach the age of eligibility for Medicare starting in 2011. This large group of Americans will require more health care, and more health care workers will be needed to meet those needs. Understanding the needs as well as the size of the workforce needed requires substantial analysis and extensive data. Two major approaches can be used to make these estimates, and the choice of both methods and assumptions can affect the outcomes of any analysis. For the United States to make workforce policy decisions with the best information, we must invest in systems and resources to generate those data and support policy-making bodies that can interpret and make recommendations consistent with the analyses.

Political pronouncements and policy statements include much conjecture concerning the health and behavioral effects of economic decline. We both summarize empirical research concerned with those effects and suggest questions for future research priorities. We separate the studies into groups defined by questions asked, mechanisms invoked, and outcomes studied. We conclude that although much research shows that undesirable job and financial experiences increase the risk of psychological and behavioral disorder, many other suspected associations remain poorly studied or unsupported. The intuition that mortality increases when the economy declines, for example, appears wrong. We note that the research informs public health programming by identifying risk factors, such as job loss, made more frequent by economic decline. The promise that the research would identify health costs and benefits of economic policy choices, however, remains unfulfilled and will likely remain so without stronger theory and greater methodological agreement.

Unlike most government initiatives in health, the Healthy People initiative of the U.S. federal government was crafted and sustained not as a federal initiative, but as a “national initiative” eliciting participation from nongovernmental national organizations, state health agencies, professional associations, multiple agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and other federal agencies, such as Agriculture, and increasingly engaging academia and state and local stakeholders in adapting the objectives for their own efforts to enact and evaluate state and local policies and programs. The quantified objectives at the center of the initiative were a product of continuous balancing of changing science and political or social concerns and priorities along with national and state or special population needs. The evolution from the first decade's objectives to each subsequent set of objectives reflected changing societal concerns, evidence-based technologies, theories, and discourses of those decades. Such accommodations changed the contours of the initiative over time in attempts to make it more relevant to specific partners and other stakeholders.

Underinsurance is most commonly defined as the state in which people with medical coverage are still exposed to financial risk. We argue that the adequacy of health insurance coverage should also be assessed in terms of the adequacy of specific benefits coverage and access to care. Underinsurance can be understood conceptually as comprising three separate domains: (a) the economic features of health insurance, (b) the benefits covered, and (c) access to health services. The literature provides ample evidence that people who are underinsured have high financial risk and face barriers in access to care similar to those who are completely uninsured. In response to the growing recognition of the problems associated with underinsurance, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 includes numerous provisions designed to limit costs to consumers, to assure a minimum set of benefits, and to enhance access to care, especially primary care.