Advertisement

Financing for Health in All Policies

  • Isabelle Durand-Zaleski
  • Karine Chevreul
  • Gregoire Jeanblanc
Chapter

Abstract

Innovative public health policies that promote health and support the objective of Health in All Policies require innovative approaches in the allocation of resources. This chapter does not advocate any particular system of resource procurement and spending but compares the existing systems and attempts to understand how we can undertake health promoting public policies that do not increase the existing inequities in our societies. This chapter is not about public finance but about the motivation of policy makers and civil servants in charge of public money to support the Health in All Policies approach.

Policy innovations required to achieve ‘Health in All Policies’ upset the traditional ways of bureaucracies and health professionals. They affect the distribution of health and monetary benefits to the population. There is evidence that investing in health yields a two- to threefold return on investment, but those who are required to invest may not be the direct beneficiaries of that investment. Investment in innovative health policies may require a budget reform to allocate resources by missions that cut across institutions (both state and social health insurance (SHI) administrative departments). This might prove more difficult in countries with Bismarckian systems (SHI) where the state administration is traditionally in charge of public health provided by salaried state professionals while the SHI is in charge of health care with fee-for-service professionals. Thus coordination is needed between the two administration departments and their payment mechanisms.

The historical belief that economic growth results in improved health in developed countries has been contradicted by evidence from North America. Increasing income is not enough when the variables of interest for population health are the distribution of income and the social and cultural environment. Should policies target health determinants (or risk factors) one by one with specific policies or population groups? If the latter route is chosen, should measures be tailored to the requirements of specific populations or be universal. Evidence of successful interventions point at the combination of universal and specific measures. Targeting health determinants individually is easier because the tools already exists (monetary incentives, for example) but has so far had limited success on population health. Universal measures benefit the entire population, not those who need it most, but because of this, they tend to gain wider support from the general public. Specific measures which address the demands of those most in need have better face validity, but receive weaker political support. Policy innovation required to implement Health in All Policies seems cut across existing beliefs and bureaucratic domains and integrate interventions from administrative departments both at the national and local level with interventions from private stakeholders. Political involvement at the highest level is necessary to give the initial momentum, but sustainability at the local level requires the participation of local stakeholders in the policy design in addition to recurrent sources of revenues.

Keywords

Social Security Public Health Policy Policy Innovation Sickness Fund Social Health Insurance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Health in All Policies, Edited by Ståhl T, Wismar M, Ollila E, Lahtinen., Leppo K Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Health Department Helsinki Finland 2006. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/document/E89260.pdf?bcsi_scan_185FE7D7897B7B4A?0&bcsi_scan_filename?E89260.pdf
  2. 2.
    Raphael D, Bryant T. Researching income and income distribution as determinants of health in Canada: gaps between theoretical knowledge, research practice, and policy implementation. Health Policy 2005;72:217–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Public Health Policies in the European Union. Holland & Mossialos ed. Ashgate Publishing 1999 Aldershot, England.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Whitehead M. Diffusion of ideas on social inequalities in health: a European perspective. Milbank Q 1998;76:469–492, 306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elbaum M. Social inequalities in health and public health: from research to policies Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 2007;55:47–54.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kunst A.E. Describing socioeconomic inequalities in health in European countries: an overview of recent studies. Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 2007;55:3–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Programme de qualité et d’efficience maladie, LFSS 2008; p. 27. Available at http://www.securite-sociale.fr/chiffres/lfss/lfss2008/2008_plfss_pqe/2008_plfss_pqe_maladie.htm
  9. 9.
    Elbaum M. Protection sociale et solidarité en France (Welfare and solidarity in France). Revue de l’ l’Observatoire Français des Conjonctures économiques. 2007;102:659–622.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans RG, Stoddart GL. Consuming research, producing policy? Am J Public Health 2003 r;93:371–379.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Bank WDI 2005; WHO/EURO HFA database 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fleurbaey M. Healthy-equivalent income, a tool to analyze social inequalities in health. Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 2007;55:39–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Fleurbaey et G. Gaulier, << International Comparisons of Living Standards by Equivalent Incomes >>, WP CEPII n° 3, janvier 2007; http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/workpap/summaries/2007/wp07-03.htm
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Suhrcke M, McKee M, Arce RA, Tsovola S, Mortensen J. The Contribution of Health to the Economy in the European Union. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Luxemburg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 23 August 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Kesteman N. Évaluer les performances de la branche Famille. Des indicateurs prévus par la LOLFSS et la LOLF CNAF Recherches et Prévisions n° 88 – juin 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fielding JE, Lancry PJ. Lessons from France--'vive la difference'. The French Health Care System and US Health System Reform. JAMA 1993 11;270:748–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raphael D, Macdonald J, Colman R, Labonte R, Hayward K, Torgerson R. Researching income and income distribution as determinants of health in Canada: gaps between theoretical knowledge, research practice, and policy implementation. Health Policy 2005;72:217–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raphael D, Bryant T. The state's role in promoting population health: public health concerns in Canada, USA, UK, and Sweden. Health Policy 2006 22;78:39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henke K-D. The funding and purchasing of healthcare. A book with seven seals. J Public Health 2006;14:385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Linda I. Reutter, Gerry Veenstra, Miriam J. Stewart, Dennis Raphael, Rhonda Love, Edward Makwarimba, Susan McMurray Lay Understandings of the effects of poverty: a Canadian perspective Health & Social Care in the Community 2005;13: 514–530.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lavis JN, Ross SE, Stoddart GL, Hohenadel JM, McLeod CB, Evans RG. Do Canadian civil servants care about the health of populations? Am J Public Health 2003;93:658–663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rochaix L, Wilsford D. State autonomy, policy paralysis: paradoxes of institution and culture in the French healthcare system. J Health Polit Policy Law 2005;3.0:97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oliver T. The politics of public health policy. Annu Rev Public Health 2006;27:195–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Goddard M, Hauck K, Preker A, Smith PC. Priority setting in health — a political economy perspective. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2006;1:79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Social Health Insurance systems in Western Europe, Saltman R, Busse R, Figueras J (eds). European observatory. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Bauld L, Judge K, Barnes M, Benzevalm, Mackenzie M, Sullivan H. Promoting social change: the experience of health action zones in England. J Soc Policy 2005;34:427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rodwin VG, Le Pen C. Health care reform in France – the birth of state-led managed care. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2259–2262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Kickbuch I. Innovation in health policy: responding to the health society. Gac Sanit 2007; 21:338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Health targets. Marinker M (ed.) BJM Books, London; 2002.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Janus K. Medicare as incubator for innovation in payment policy. J Health Polit Policy Law 2007;32(1):293–306.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Linnan L, Weiner B, Graham A, Emmons K. Manager beliefs regarding worksite health promotion: findings from the Working Healthy Project 2. Am J Health Promot 2007;21:521–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kruger J, Yore MM, Bauer DR, Kohl HW. Selected barriers and incentives for worksite health promotion services and policies. Am J Health Promot 2007;21:439–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Downey AM, Sharp DJ. Why do managers allocate resources to workplace health promotion programmes in countries with national health coverage? Health Promot Int 2007;22:102–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hollander RB, Lengermann JJ. Corporate characteristics and worksite health promotion programs: survey findings from Fortune 500 companies. Soc Sci Med 1988;26:491–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hoeijmakers M, De Leeuw E, Kenis P, De Vries NK. Local health policy development processes in the Netherlands: an expanded toolbox for health promotion. Health Promot Int 2007;22:112–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Robinson K, Farmer T, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. From heart health promotion to chronic disease prevention: contributions of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Prev Chronic Dis 2007;4:A29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
  49. 49.
  50. 50.
    Durand-Zaleski I. Health targets in France: role of public health and social health insurance reform laws. Euro Health 2006;3:18–20.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
    Cohn D. Jumping into the Political Fray: Academics and Policy-Making. May 2006 Vol. 7, No. 3. Institute for Research on Public Policy Matters, IRPP Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Durand-Zaleski
    • 1
  • Karine Chevreul
  • Gregoire Jeanblanc
  1. 1.Universite Paris 12,Faculte de MedecineCreteilFrance

Personalised recommendations