Skip to main content

Does politics matter for health?

Does politics really matter when it comes to our health?  Labour or Tory, Democrat or Republican, does it have an impact?  Of course, those who campaign for change would assume that it does. The progressive welfare policies of the Labour government after WW2, and particularly the creation of the NHS, have had a lasting impact on health and wellbeing.  The austerity imposed during the last decade under Tory-led governments has had a deleterious effect on life expectancy. Yet, we often hear that 'it doesn't matter whose in power, they are all the same.' as a political mantra.  It feeds into the narrative of general disillusion with politics and democracy.  But now, the results of a  study from the USA also suggests that party politics matters. 

A new study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine shows significantly higher infant and postneonatal mortality rates under Republican-controlled state legislatures than under non-Republican–controlled ones. Moreover, the effects may be more significant for black infants than for white infants.

“These findings support the politics hypothesis that the social determinants of health are, at least in part, constructed by the power vested in governments,” said lead investigator Dr Javier M. Rodriguez, of the Department of Politics & Government, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA.

Many social and health obligations depend on the decisions state representatives make. State legislatures are responsible for safety-net programs, the state’s minimum wage and many other public goods and services that influence the social determinants of health. The influence of state governments on population health followed decentralisation patterns since the 1970s, when states started to expand their independence from federal jurisdiction over welfare programs, including those directly affecting infant health, such as Medicaid.

The investigators examined how changes in the party composition of state legislatures and the upper and lower houses and governorships affected infant mortality rates, neonatal mortality rates, and post-neonatal mortality rates from 1969 to 2014. They also analysed annual state unemployment rates, the average age of female individuals, birth rates and other sociodemographic data.

They found that net of history, infant mortality is consistently higher under Republican-controlled state legislatures than non-Republican–controlled ones. Going from a non-Republican–controlled state Congress to a Republican-controlled one is associated with a 4.2% increase in infant mortality and an 8.1% increase in postneonatal mortality. Their findings show more significant estimates for Black than White infants, although the differences were not effective at conventional levels. Research has found that the introduction of Medicaid was associated with an 8% decline in non-White infant mortality between 1965 and 1980 (Goodman-Bacon, 2018). The annual increase in Black infant mortality under Republican legislatures found in this study is 5.9% — that is, equal to about 75% the magnitude of the 15-year benefit attributed to the introduction of Medicaid.

The party that controls state legislatures is powerfully associated with fluctuations in infant mortality rates and racial disparities in infant health, scientists report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Credit:

Aside from party control of legislatures, the investigators found no clear evidence that Republican governors impact infant mortality rates. The investigators suggest that this may reflect variability in the balance of power between legislative and executive branches across the states. In addition, some governors’ health policy positions seem to be more synchronised with state-level culture than with national party ideological stances. For example, some Republican governors who are not highly conservative in the conventional sense may be more aligned with a Democratic legislature on healthcare issues.

However, the authors caution that it may not account for unobserved differences across states that may change at the same time as the party control change of state legislatures. Nor could it account for other mechanisms not included in the study that may connect Republican administrations and increases in infant mortality rates.

Nevertheless, the findings emphasise the power political institutions and governments have on writing and executing the policies and programs that shape the social determinants of health, including infant health.

“Unfortunately, in a drastically polarized political environment, it is often difficult for Americans to notice the underlying mechanisms that distribute the production of illness and human suffering that ultimately decide who lives and who dies of preventable reasons,” commented Dr Rodriquez. “As political decisions are a matter of life and death, the parties, politicians and policies that Americans support should be evidence-based and incorruptible. A deep understanding of political processes and institutions at the state level is necessary for improving overall population health and promoting health equity.”

Perhaps, none of this should surprise us. It demonstrates that setting health goals with clear health policies makes a difference.  The significant divide in politics is between those who believe economic goals alone are sufficient and those who believe in establishing a framework for social justice.  We cannot buy an ounce of social justice in a 'free market'.  Another way to describe the divide is between interventionist and non-interventionist strategies. 

Photo by Christian Bowen on Unsplash

About the author: Ray Noble is a Chartered Biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology. 


Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Half measures on heat pumps

Through the "Heat and Buildings Strategy", the UK government has set out its plan to incentivise people to install low-carbon heating systems in what it calls a simple, fair, and cheap way as they come to replace their old boilers over the coming decade.  New grants of £5,000 will be available from April next year to encourage homeowners to install more efficient, low carbon heating systems – like heat pumps that do not emit carbon when used – through a new £450 million 3-year Boiler Upgrade Scheme. However, it has been widely criticised as inadequate and a strategy without a strategy.  Essentially, it will benefit those who can afford more readily to replace their boiler.   Undoubtedly, the grants will be welcome to those who plan to replace their boilers in the next three years, and it might encourage others to do so, but for too many households, it leaves them between a rock and a hard place.  There are no plans to phase out gas boilers in existing homes.  Yet, that is wha

No real commitment on climate

Actions, they say, speak louder than words.  So, when we look at the UK government's actions, we can only conclude they don't mean what they say about the environment and climate change.  Despite their claims to be leading the charge on reducing emissions, the UK government is still looking to approve new oil fields.  The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson,  has announced his support for developing the Cambo oil field and 16 other climate-destroying oil projects. Cambo is an oil field in the North Sea, west of Shetland. A company called Siccar Point has applied for a permit to drill at least 170 million barrels of oil there. If it's allowed to go ahead, it will result in the emissions equivalent of 18 coal plants running for a year.  What? Yes, 18 coal plants a year!  Today, as I write, Greenpeace is demonstrating in Downing Street against this project.  I suppose it will get the usual government dismissal and complaints about inconveniencing others.  Well, we know it won't