A peer remarked to me recently that MH Blog has in part started to look like "Social Determinants of Health Blog." This was meant as observation, not criticism, but the observation is a fair one. To be sure, the medical humanities is significantly more expansive than concerns over health disparities, public health policy, and the social determinants of health. One of the challenges of working on an interdisciplinary blog like this is that I cannot possibly hope to cover the breadth and length of the medical humanities. That's one reason I rely so heavily on the skills of the various contributors to this blog, to help me try to expand the reach of the posts here.
However, from the outset, I freely admitted that this blog will undoubtedly reflect my own interests and pursuits, even though it is not, per se, a personal blog. This is itself a humanist precept, of course, as we've noted here before. Moreover, work on health disparities, health policy, and the social determinants of health touches on the medical humanities in important ways. I think of it as evoking Plato's fundamental question: how shall we live? What kind of society do we want to practice being? I hope the answer to this question is in part, "a society that consciously works to ameliorate human suffering."
Of course, the translation of that general principle into local, particular action is obviously fraught, but this, too, is a quintessentially humanist concept. In short, I think the medical humanities have much to offer for the socially minded health policy commentator (and what other kind could there be?!?), and that is reflected in this blog.
With that said, the N.Y. Times ran an article on the widening health inequalities in the U.S., continuing the recent spate of coverage on the SDOH. Excerpts:
WASHINGTON — New government research has found “large and growing” disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.
Life expectancy for the nation as a whole has increased, the researchers said, but affluent people have experienced greater gains, and this, in turn, has caused a widening gap.
[ . . . ]
Some health economists contend that the disparities between rich and poor inevitably widen as doctors make gains in treating the major causes of death.
Nancy Krieger, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, rejected that idea. Professor Krieger investigated changes in the rate of premature mortality (dying before the age of 65) and infant death from 1960 to 2002. She found that inequities shrank from 1966 to 1980, but then widened.
“The recent trend of growing disparities in health status is not inevitable,” she said. “From 1966 to 1980, socioeconomic disparities declined in tandem with a decline in mortality rates.”
This is significant for a variety of ethical and policy reasons, not least of which is the burgeoning evidence that population health is itself connected in significant ways to overall socioeconomic inequalities. The idea is that one of the most promising means to improving population health is by reducing inequalities (and there are many ways of doing so that do not expressly rely on wealth redistribution).
As they say, go read the whole thing.