|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROLOGUEVulnerable Populations: Definitions And DeterminantsThe debate over reauthorization of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program has widely become viewed as a proxy crystallizing todays philosophical divide regarding solutions to covering the uninsured. The magnitude of the tumult, however, also illustrates what those in the public health and social science communities have bemoaned for years: that the center of gravity for public policy initiatives intended to improve the health status of the most vulnerable has remained fixed on improving access to care. Far less consideration has been given to equally important "upstream" factors affecting the overall health of the population, including socioeconomic status, education, and the built environment. For proof that the United States has voted with its collective feet in overemphasizing the medical model, one need only recall that roughly 95 percent of the health care economy pays for medical care, with only the balance addressing nonmedical determinants of health. In 1987 Health Affairs published a thematic issue devoted to health and poverty, focusing on the needs of many of the same groups that we would now normatively term "vulnerable." At that time, addressing these needs was largely synonymous with improving access to care. Since then, however, although much has been learned about the extent to which nonmedical determinants mediate overall health status, such knowledge has not largely permeated health policy levers. What accounts for this continued disconnect? Beyond a sheer "awareness gap," the desire to postpone perceived thorny discussions of how to achieve greater socioeconomic equity might also contribute to the dearth of public commitment to more comprehensively addressing the additional arbiters of poor health. The papers that follow attempt to refocus the conversation by imparting greater insight into what is meant by vulnerability, its determinants, and policies that may be applied to improve the overall health status of at-risk groups. First, David Mechanic and Jennifer Tanner identify individual and communal factors that may serve as points of entry for policymakers seeking to reduce overall health vulnerability. Perspectives by Bruce Vladeck and Tom Miller follow. Next, Alice Furumoto-Dawson and colleagues deconstruct the complex biological and environmental interactions at work in childhood that potentially contribute to poor health status later in life. Richard Epstein and Paula Lantz and colleagues also weigh in with Perspectives. Then, Kathryn Derose and colleagues describe the unique barriers heightening the risk of poor health among immigrant populations seeking needed care. Finally, Dennis Andrulis and colleagues examine the extent to which minority communities are integrated into emergency preparedness planning efforts and point to potential models for optimal future initiatives.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||