NZMA position on health inequity

Written By: - Date published: 2:54 pm, May 3rd, 2011 - 18 comments
Categories: equality, health - Tags: , , ,

There is a very interesting “Positional Statement” from the New Zealand Medical Association on Health Inequity.  It was published on the 4th of March, but it didn’t get the coverage it deserved.

The NZMA is considered by some a conservative organisation, with lots of wealthy doctors as its members.  But this is a very radical document – one that strikes clearly against Don Brash’s version of “equality”, and in fact advocates many of Labour’s policy positions.

The whole document (8 pages) is worth reading; I’ll quote the core position statement in full at the bottom.

It starts by defining the difference between “equality” (what Don Brash talks about – treating everyone the same) and “equity” – an ethical principle aimed at reducing systematic disparities.  It looks at overseas studies that suggest that New Zealand’s poor performance on a number of health measures is down to health inequity – whilst recognising that this is a complex system of which there cannot be complete certainty about causes and effects.

And then it sees a core problem that goes to the health of our society as a whole: Income Inequality.  Income inequality strikes in 2 ways: material deprivation and psychosocially – causing stress, shame and distrust.  The material effects are obvious for those who can’t afford quality housing, the same level of health and education access etc; the psychosocial effects lead to more smoking, overeating, violence and less community involvement.

As a specific example, cardiovascular disease hits the poor harder.  They have higher levels of smoking and obesity, but there’s still a 20% difference when accounting for those and similar factors that appears to from the stress of low status.  The NZMA suggest you can treat the material differences by removing GST from healthy food, and banning smoking in more areas; but the only way to fix the psychosocial effect is to reduce New Zealand’s increasing income inequality.

The NZMA also look at the importance of a child’s in utero and early childhood experience; and how essential it is that we as a society focus on giving children the best possible start for them to ever be able to achieve their potential.  Ensuring they don’t suffer the consequences of early inequity; get full health and educational support and freedom from stress and violence.

By investing up front, we save later on: in our health budget, by reduced sick leave for businesses and by reduced numbers in our prisons and size of our police force.

But beyond the economic benefits, the NZMA is calling for a fundamental change in how we evaluate our society:

[T]hat economic growth should not be viewed as the sole measure of a country’s success and that the fair distribution of health, well-being and environmental and social sustainability are equally important goals.

The most complete prescription for society NZMA quote comes from Britain’s Marmot Review.  The Marmot Review advocates giving children the best possible start, giving them the life and work skills necessary to get fulfilling jobs, and ensuring those jobs exist.  It pushes for decent incomes, health support and communities for all.  NZMA also note that the recommendations on reducing social inequality has a “synergy of purpose” with tackling climate change, “often requir[ing] similar decisions and actions.”

All this is necessary to improve health outcomes for the population; that is why it is a medical issue.

New Zealand doctors are saying that for Aotearoa to be a healthy society we need a government that gives equity to our society, puts kids first, takes GST off healthy food, invests in education and prevention to save money on hospitals and prisons, and creates more jobs (of higher quality).  With John’s lack of a plan, and Don’s flying in the wrong direction, New Zealand will need to vote for change this year if we’re going to get a healthier society.

–

The core position statement reads:

The NZMA:

20. Believes that in order to eliminate inequities in health a whole of government approach will be required. In particular, policies addressing education, employment, poverty, housing, taxation and social security should be assessed for their health impact.

21. Believes that economic growth should not be viewed as the sole measure of a country’s success and that the fair distribution of health, well-being and environmental and social sustainability are equally important goals.

22. Calls on the government to recognise that while addressing health inequities is primarily a human rights issue, doing so is also cost effective in the long term. Inaction on the social determinants of health, and hence worsening health inequities, threatens to undermine economic growth.

23. Notes that tackling the social determinants that underlie health inequity, and tackling climate change, often require similar decisions and actions. This synergy of purpose needs to be recognised and exploited.

24. Urges the government to, wherever possible, introduce the concept of proportional universalism into all its social policies: this is action that benefits all members of society, but preferentially benefits those who experience more suffering.

25. Calls on the government to continue to urgently address the inequities in health status experienced by Māori, Pacific Island Peoples, refugees, migrants and other vulnerable groups. These health inequities are compounded by inequities in exposure to risks, in access to resources, and opportunities to lead healthy lives.

26. Supports the move to totally ban cigarette sales by 2020, and supports research-proven initiatives, such as removing GST from healthy food, that promote the increased consumption of healthy food.

27. Calls for the government to adopt the following policy objectives as set out in the ‘Marmot Review’:
a) Give every child the best start in life.

i) Reduce inequities in the early development of physical and emotional health, and cognitive, linguistic and social skills.
ii) Ensure high quality maternity services, parenting programmes, childcare and early years education to meet need across the social gradient.
iii) Build the resilience and well-being of young children across the social gradient.

b) Enable all children young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives:

i) Reduce the social and ethnic gradient in skills and qualifications.
ii) Ensure that schools, families and communities work in partnership to reduce the gradient in health, well being and resilience of children and young people.
iii) Improve the access and use of quality life long learning across the social gradient.

c) Create fair employment and good work for all:

i) Improve access to good jobs and reduce long term unemployment across the social gradient.
ii) Make it easier for people who are disadvantaged in the labour market to obtain and keep work.
iii) Improve the quality of jobs across the social gradient.

d) Ensure a healthy standard of living for all:

i) Establish a minimum income for healthy living for people of all ages.
ii) Reduce the social gradient in the standard of living through reducing income inequities.
iii) Reduce the ‘cliff edges’ faced by people moving between benefits and work.

e) Create and developing healthy and sustainable places and communities:

i) Develop common policies to reduce the scale and impact of climate change and health inequities.
ii) Improve community capital and reduce social isolation across the social gradient.

f) Strengthen the role and impact of ill health prevention:

i) Prioritise prevention and early detection of those conditions most strongly related to health inequities.
ii) Increase availability of long-term and sustainable funding in ill health prevention across the social gradient.

28. Urges the government to include in its deliberations the recommendations of the recently released The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective child health and wellbeing. In particular the NZMA calls on the government to do the following in order to improve the access and use of quality life-long learning across the social gradient:

  • strengthen leadership to champion child health and wellbeing
  • develop an effective whole-of-government approach for children
  • establish an integrated approach to service delivery for children
  • monitor child health and wellbeing using an agreed set of indicators.

18 comments on “NZMA position on health inequity ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ak 1
    3 May 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Well well – clinician-led policy backed by solid research, and not an idle back-room bureaucrat in sight. I wonder what our bold “clinician-first” minister will do….

  2. r0b 2
    3 May 2011 at 4:48 pm

    By an amazing coincidence (?), Labour is promising policy to put children first.

    I hope they’re serious about it. I can’t wait to see the details!

    • Bunji 2.1
      3 May 2011 at 5:02 pm

      There were some good details at a meeting in West Auckland last night apparently, but I wasn’t there. Hope to get notes soon. Longer paid parental leave with some being able to be used by the father was part of it anyway…

      Also in Labour policies advocated: GST off healthy food, more emphasis on skills & education, a commitment to lower unemployment, and reducing of income inequality through $15 minimum wage & first $5000 tax-free…

    • Uncle Helen 2.2
      3 May 2011 at 6:57 pm

      Labour is promising policy to put children first.

      Translation: “Higher taxes for decent Kiwis in order to pay for the P habits of the DPB parasites who have children (that they abuse) solely to qualify for a State-provided income.”

      • rosy 2.2.1
        3 May 2011 at 7:09 pm

        So you’d agree with taxes being spent on creating jobs, strengthening customs detection and improving early childhood education as well as improving health management and mentoring for new mothers? (e.g. improving Plunket funding so they can make more home visits)

      • Ben Clark 2.2.2
        3 May 2011 at 7:20 pm

        Nice trolling.

        I’m yet to find anyone who come up with an actual person (as opposed to their cousin picking up a hitchhiker who heard from a guy at the pub about this lass…) who had children to get a benefit. The DPB is hardly a luxurious lifestyle for parents who have been left in reduced circumstances – many times having been left in the lurch by their partner who escapes any DPB stigma.

        It is also for the children, not the parent; albeit there seem to be many who are content to mete out punishment on children for the “sins” of their parents. Even if it means they end up paying for that child on the unemployment benefit later.

        If your focussed on the economic argument, rather than a happier society, it still needn’t mean higher taxes. Focussing on children is an investment in the future. The ECE costs that National aren’t prepared to meet have a $13:$1 return. Reduced prison and hospital requirements, and more taxes from the ECE-enhanced childer’s better jobs all mean that if we invest now in our children we all stand to benefit from a happier, healthier, wealthier society.

        But obviously that’s long-term thinking, not something National and its defenders would go for.

        • Uncle Helen 2.2.2.1
          3 May 2011 at 10:03 pm

          I’m yet to find anyone who come up with an actual person (as opposed to their cousin picking up a hitchhiker who heard from a guy at the pub about this lass…) who had children to get a benefit. The DPB is hardly a luxurious lifestyle for parents who have been left in reduced circumstances

          Feel free to address your ignorance, be the first of your Labour-voting welfare-guzzling kind to actually inform yourself prior to having the temerity to voice an opinion:

          http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2010/04/when-dpb-pays-more-than-average-female.html

          It is also for the children, not the parent; albeit there seem to be many who are content to mete out punishment on children for the “sins” of their parents. Even if it means they end up paying for that child on the unemployment benefit later.

          If Labour actually cared for children in poverty they’d be advocating food stamps, so that welfare actually reached children, rather than being flushed on the drug and alcohol lifestyle-choices of the Labour-voting child abusers and murderers.

          • McFlock 2.2.2.1.1
            3 May 2011 at 11:08 pm

            AH – it was apparently unimpressive on her blog (reading the comments) and it’s equally unimpressive as a source here.

            Two reasons: it assumes that a woman on the minimum wage is not receiving additional support; and it also assumes that the costs of, oh, feedingclothingwashingheatinghousingeducatingtransportingetcetcetc two children does not approach the Trump-like income boost that the DPB allows.

            Those are two reasons you and your semi-numerate blogging kamerade are nutbars.

          • millsy 2.2.2.1.2
            4 May 2011 at 12:16 am

            Are you perfectly willing for mothers and their babies to live on the streets there, Uncle Helen?

        • Afewknowthetruth 2.2.2.2
          3 May 2011 at 10:15 pm

          ‘if we invest now in our children we all stand to benefit from a happier, healthier, wealthier society’

          You still don’t get it, do you Ben?

          Oil is the foundation on which wesern economies have been built. When global oil extractioin is declining (which it is), the vast majority of people get poorer by the month. We are in the early sages of the reversal of the Industrial Revolution. What we have seen thus far is just a tiny taste of what is to come. Current economic and social arrangemnents have no future.

          When governments refuse to address out of control CO2 emissions for decades (which they have), the global environment rapidly turns to custard. The climate instability we have seen thus far is just a tiny taste of what is to come. Industrial civilisation has no long term future.

          I guess you’ll wake up to reality when it hits you really hard in the face. That may take another year or two. .

        • Robert Atack 2.2.2.3
          4 May 2011 at 7:44 am

          >But obviously that’s long-term thinking, not something National and its defenders would go for<

          So are you a defender of National now Ben? – Being a supporter of Kiwisaver is a clear indicator that you haven't a long term thought in your mind, you are just kowtowing to the current mind set of destroy everything as fast as we can and bugger the kids. That is what Kiwisaver is dependent on … yet Labour and the greeds promoted this planet destroying scam ?
          Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related ,think (as in use your brain) then, please explain how an 18 year old is going to get a payout in 47 years time?

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.3
        4 May 2011 at 12:22 am

        DPB parasites

        Ah, you’re someone who needs to victimise a struggling disempowered underclass and bash them for your own pleasurable gains.

        A woman hating bully in other words.

  3. McFlock 3
    3 May 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Damned fools – don’t they know that health, particularly infant health, is just a lifestyle choice?
    /sarc

  4. Afewknowthetruth 4
    3 May 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Words come easily.

    e) Create and developing healthy and sustainable places and communities:

    This cannot be done within the framework of the present economic system, which is predicated continuous expansion of the industrialism which destroys sustainability.

    i) Develop common policies to reduce the scale and impact of climate change and health inequities.

    Reducing the impact of climate change also reqires a halt to industrialism. It’s not going to happen. Economists and politicians will keep promoting business as usual and keep destroying the future until they can’t.

  5. RedLogix 5
    3 May 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Impressive coming from the NZMA. Thanks for this… the thing about doctors, GP’s especially, is that they are the people at the coal-face of social distress and dysfunction day in, day out. If there is any professional group, save perhaps teachers, it must be these people who have to wade through the consequences of inequality more intimately than any other.

    What is striking is to me is how matter of fact this document is, how plainly the realities of poverty and inequality are stated, clearly naming who is paying the price of capitalism. But then that’s how capitalism works, a few make off with the spoils, while the rest of us get to clean up the mess.

  6. millsy 6
    4 May 2011 at 12:15 am

    A marked contrast from the days when the NZMA (back when it was under the British Medical Association), fought tooth and nail against the 1935-49 Labour Government’s efforts to make healthcare services avalible to all, regardless of ability to pay.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.