Equality and Human Rights in Health Insurance Platforms
From Digital Culture & Society
[edit] Context statement
This panel critically examines three dimensions of equality and human rights with regard to health-insurance platforms. A social impact analysis, policy dimension, and economic dimension are critical to understand in which ways equality and human rights may be restricted in these platforms. Understanding Health Inequalities: A fundamental basis for our research lies in understanding and redressing health inequalities. Through our social dimension approach we want to dig deep into understanding inequalities in access to healthcare for various groups given factors like income, level of education, ethnicity, and geographic location and provide recommendations on ways to make healthcare systems more equitable. Understanding information from a policy and decision-making perspective also makes it easier to see how platforms affect policy-making on all levels. An influencer of health policies is to make sure that health policies are designed to ensure that anyone can get access to healthcare, regardless of their socio-economic status, or for insurance companies to design insurance platform that are super inclusive and efficient. Economics have a large impact on how healthcare costs are shared out among individuals, employers, governments. Understanding these economic influences and using this knowledge to create health insurance platforms with effective cost/benefit balancing mechanisms ensures we have sustainable healthcare systems. Health care and insurance platforms are important in shaping the health outcomes of populations worldwide, and as regards equality and human rights-huge gateways through which needed health services are accessed by individuals. Research on equality and human rights implications within these platforms today is important to help us better understand the consequences of systemic biases or barriers in these platforms on a day-to-day basis.
The first article emphasises that mental, neurological, and substance use disorders should be included in health care policies and insurance coverage for both economic and ethical reasons. It highlights the large but often ignored economic costs of such disorders, while noting cost-effective interventions that are available to address them. By documenting the economic and health benefits of providing care for these disorders, the article broadens our knowledge of the ways in which health care and insurance platforms can promote equity and fulfil human rights. The second article addresses the barriers and requirements for scaling up interventions and for the needed increase in investment and the integration of interventions for these disorders into mainstream health care. It shows how this research can help to shape inclusive health care policies and platforms. The third article provides a more detailed estimate of the economic costs, including the additional resources that will be needed to deliver those interventions. And the third article emphasises both the need for a determined commitment and the need for the sort of financial protection measures, overwhelmingly in the form of government budgeting, that assure equitable access to the health care services provided.
Research on equity and human rights within health care platforms will build our understanding of the systemic determinants of health inequalities, while giving us greater insight into their design and implementation, and hence a better idea of where those platforms are headed in the manner of social evolution that Russlynn Ali has outlined.
Xc18gb 08:20, 1 December 2023 (EST)
[edit] Social determinants of health in the Big Data mode of population health risk calculation
Rowe, R. (2021). Social determinants of health in the Big Data mode of population health risk calculation. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 205395172110628-. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211062881
DOI:10.1177/20539517211062881
[edit] Context
Rowe’s article, “Social Determinants of Health in Big Data Mode for Population Health Risk Calculation” contributes to the growing conversation about how technology, health care, and social justice interact. In this way, the article fits into larger discussions regarding human rights and equality in relation to health care and insurance platforms. Rowe’s article provides an informative analysis about how technology is rapidly transforming health care delivery, about the impact of big data in health outcomes, and whether such decisions will lead to disparate treatment of communities. Rowe digs deep into both the sociological implications of big data in general, and commercial platforms applying it to the assessment of social determinants of health (SDOH). There are mounting concerns within the field that misuse or misunderstanding about the use of Big Data could lead to even greater inequality across existing disparities. With an examination of the disproportionate impact that algorithmic prediction and risk calculations might have on marginalized communities, not to mention the important discussion on bias and discrimination persistence, this report underscores the importance of prioritizing individual risk over structural considerations to stress the need for a population-health approach that is integrative and fair.
[edit] Overview
Rowe examines how social determinants of health (SDOH) intersect with the emerging big data paradigm of population health risk calculation in his 2021 article "Social Determinants of Health in Big Data Paradigm of Population Health Risk Calculation. " Rowe maintains that algorithmic prediction and risk calculation platforms, like Opioid360, raise severe concerns of bias and discrimination while prioritizing individual risk over structural considerations. This argument, supported by critical analysis and references to previous scholarship, brings light to the complexity of health data analytics as well as potential outcomes associated with algorithmic risk calculation. This article takes its reader on an in-depth exploration of risk calculation platforms, their connections to SDOH, and their political and economic ramifications. The paper's central theme seeks to address the ongoing debate around the ethical implications of technology in healthcare and human services by emphasizing social equity and rights protection when using big data in healthcare and proposing an inclusive population health approach.
[edit] Strengths and Weaknesses
What distinguishes Rowe’s work is its reflection on the social determinants of health (SDOH) and the use big data in population health risk calculation, specifically concerns related to the individual risk calculation algorithms of algorithmic prediction platforms. Rowe articulates concerns about biases, forms of discrimination, and overemphasis on individual risks VIA algorithmic prediction platforms; she unpacks the politics/economics of health data analytics as well as the commercial interests and relations of power, drawing in other scholarship to make sure her claims are credible.
Issues might arise from questions over research methods. While interviews were conducted and grey literature was read, it was not possible to piece together clear explanations about the sample size and selection criteria or the data analysis procedure. To provide a more transparent and provable research process and to provide examples of real-world experiences, it would be helpful to add sections detailing the methodology. By doing so, the readers can test the validity of the findings and also see other possible solutions or alternative strategies.
While the evaluation of risk calculation platforms so far is accurate, it would have been helpful for Rowe to include more on what we might do instead; for example, how to include strategy to reduce biases in the use of such platforms and to cleanse the platforms of them altogether. Rowe maintains a timely and comprehensive argument about the biases and discrimination of risks calculated VIA algorithmic prediction platforms and allows for the incorporation of the experiences of others, but it would have been helpful to provide more real world examples.
Another one is that the latest date that the document was updated is in the year of 2021, but because of the rapid growth and changes occurring in big data and population health risk calculation platforms, there may be new ideas and techniques that have not been developed or tested. The main points and the topics of biases, discrimination and priorities of risks are up to debate and should be considered in the bombarded discourse over the topic of health data analytics and risk calculation platform.
[edit] Assessment
This article is a brilliant exploration of the intersection of the social determinants of health and big-data approaches to calculating population health risk. The author wields a skilled scalpel to enumerate the potential problems and perils — such as bias, discrimination and platforms that prioritize individual risk over structural risk — on which we should be focused. Taking a sociological standpoint and examining the political and economic dimensions of health data analytics, Ms. Rowe vastly improves our understanding of how the social and structural winds beat on health data analytics and health equity. The paper stands as a stark illustration of the dangers of 100 percent faith in the algorithms’ forecasts in health, and a reminder that until we begin to think much more broadly about the social determinants of health, we can’t throw our hands in the air and pretend that we’ve given informed consent to be judged.
Those are questions that the platforms and health care allies should be asking themselves. What are the ethical limits of big-data use in health? What to do, about algorithmic bias? What must be done so that equity concerns are baked into the way we calculate health risk? Frankly, inquiring minds should want to know.
Xc18gb 08:20, 1 December 2023 (EST)
[edit] Critical Anthropology of Global Health "Takes a Stand" Statement: A Critical Medical Anthropological Approach to the U.S.'s Affordable Care Act
Horton, S., Abadía, C., Mulligan, J., & Thompson, J. J. (2014). Critical Anthropology of Global Health “Takes a Stand” Statement: A Critical Medical Anthropological Approach to the U.S.’s Affordable Care Act. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 28(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12065
DOI: DOI: 10.1111/maq.12065
[edit] Context
Healthcare policy and insurance can be complicated, and it is important to understand what the intentions are, how it is implemented and how it affects different demographics. "Critical Anthropology of Global Health ‘Takes a Stand’ Statement: a Critical Medical Anthropological Approach to U.S. ‘Affordable Care Act’” is a well-executed article that provides structural analysis of the U.S. Affordable Care Act as a policy which makes a difference in that it uses critical medical anthropology principles as a research lens to analyze U.S. Affordable Care Act and find connections between policies such as healthcare access and dynamics associated with inequality and human rights in terms of policy intent implementation and implementation by taking stand statements like "Critical Anthropology of Global Health‘Takes a Stand' Statement".
Given that access to healthcare is increasingly recognized as a human right, reading this article is a call to action whose timing could not be better as it highlights the often unintended but greater consequences of what implementing policies means; and it asks the question: does the law serve each demographic equally or only perpetuate existing inequalities? Delving into the goals, implementation and consequences of the ACA, this article provides an understanding of the true complexity and challenges in creating an equal system of care and insurance for all. As it should urge us to question the cultural legitimacy of systems of healthcare driven by profit and the assumptions and ideologies on which the entire system of healthcare taxation is based, it should move patients and advocates to take advantage of health care reform to combat systemic inequality so as to achieve more equitable care; and to view the system from a lens of ethnocultural differences, urging all to question and change the parts that do not work to best meet the needs of individuals.
[edit] Overview
This paper explores the potential unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in generating and perpetuating unintended healthcare disparities within a critical cultural medical anthropological framework. The paper follows a progression starting with an introduction and overview, moving to an explanation of how the ACA was implemented in practice, performing a critical analysis of the ACA using an analytical outline, and wrapping up with a discussion of these topics for issues of equality and human rights present in healthcare provision. This piece employs essential techniques of medical anthropology to address key social determinants of health and political economy and also incorporates non-traditional medical anthropological approaches and techniques of critique. While traditional policy analysis is meant to be descriptive and focus on intent, the author of this piece uses more traditional medical anthropological techniques of critique. Traditional policy analysis typically relies on the review of a large number of primary policy documents or legislation, policy briefs, and secondary data from policy centers on the effects of policy upon population groups and public health as well.
Moreover, the author presents a clear case for the importance of anthropologists in evaluating the ideological consequences and assumptions of the Affordable Care Act. Anthropologists have much to contribute by conducting empirical analysis of the actual effects of the act, breaking down how market-based medicine is delineated, and uncovering and analyzing the health-social contract. Costs should be demystified to challenge our assumptions, and the concept of the standard of care must be deconstructed. The primary methodology used in the article relies on the analysis of primary and secondary documents from the relevant policy subfield or topic. The argument in the report also cuts across the “three fields” of politics/economics, aimed at policy issues and broad-range impacts, and social/cultural, with an orientation toward matters of culture, representation, identity, and power. It presents a critique of the Affordable Care Act that reaches into many different aspects of health care and insurance platforms, as well as their effect on various populations.
[edit] Strengths and Weaknesses
This article presents a fresh viewpoint that sheds light on the complexity of healthcare policy, social determinants of health, and equity concerns regarding healthcare delivery systems. The author uses logic and evidence to make her point that health care policy needs to be evaluated not just regarding its intent but also its implementation and outcomes. His emphasis on healthcare equity and human rights adds cohesion and coherence throughout. Effectively encompassing equity and human rights themes in healthcare and insurance, this article investigates assumptions and inequalities inherent to marketized healthcare systems, challenging their cultural legitimacy while emphasizing the necessity of critical analysis of global healthcare systems.
The article's argument is well-organized and effectively builds on itself to make a compelling case for examining whether healthcare mandates function to "actually help America's citizens" or if "expanding healthcare insurance is merely an attempt to win votes and exert government control." The sourcing of evidence from policy documents and secondary data analysis of those records strengthens the persuasiveness of the claims made in this argument. The argument generally focuses on care, compensation, and human rights, a part of the globalization of equal-opportunity healthcare insurance. The article builds on the themes of Human rights and healthcare equality with the linked claims that line up with each other throughout it. Overall, the report is a reasonably consistent and coherent work where the parts fit together to provide a complete and comprehensive understanding of the argument and its implications.
Notwithstanding its strengths, this article would have benefitted from a more in-depth examination of how the Affordable Care Act affected different demographic groups, using specific examples or case studies to illustrate and make its argument more powerful and persuasive. Although it is mentioned that the findings from the United States are not applicable in other countries, the critique of the article focuses solely on the United States Affordable Care Act. Therefore, many of the valid findings aren’t applicable elsewhere. Since the report directly relates to other health systems, it could have been improved by considering other health care policies or models. Given its publication date (2014), more relevant references, such as recent developments in healthcare reform legislation or updates, such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or changes to the political environment, may also enhance the relevance and timeliness of content in articles like these.
[edit] Assessment
This article adds a nuanced and in-depth analysis of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as part of the growing critical medical anthropology literature. In particular, this article critically examines and unpacks the ACA's goals, implementations, and disparate impacts over different demographic groups; because it is only in an equitable and human rights framework that any policy can meet its stated goals, the pathologizing rhetoric that emphasizes implementation (and therefore intent) is inadequate. As an analytic policy contribution, this article adds an essential contribution to a greater understanding of the consequences of ACA implementation, a critical evaluation component. The following critique underscores the importance of focusing on a policy's intent, actual deployments, and the differential impacts on disparate demographic groups. This critical evaluation underscores the need for policies that adhere to equality and human rights principles and, as such, contribute meaningfully to contemporary discourses surrounding healthcare and insurance platforms. The critical analysis of these assumptions, inequalities, and ideological underpinnings of market-based medicine also highlights the need for empirical research, ethnography, and historical contextualization to inform and truly understand the complex nature of healthcare reform. It supports those in healthcare, health policy, and the social determinants of health. It adds essential research questions surrounding ethical implications, disparate consequences, and efforts to ensure equity-enhancing measures through procedures. The analytical policy contribution of this article is a valuable way of examining the consequences of health care and insurance platforms on the goals of equality and human rights. It can contribute to a greater understanding of possible future conversations and reform, making it an excellent contribution to researchers, policymakers, readers, and those interested in healthcare policy, social justice, and the expanding globalization of market-based medicine.
Xc18gb 08:20, 1 December 2023 (EST)
[edit] Addressing the burden of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders: key messages from Disease Control Priorities , 3rd edition
Patel, V., Chisholm, D., Parikh, R., Charlson, F. J., Degenhardt, L., Dua, T., Ferrari, A. J., Hyman, S., Laxminarayan, R., Levin, C., Lund, C., Medina Mora, M. E., Petersen, I., Scott, J., Shidhaye, R., Vijayakumar, L., Thornicroft, G., & Whiteford, H. (2016). Addressing the burden of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders: key messages from Disease Control Priorities , 3rd edition. The Lancet, 387(10028), 1672–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00390-6
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00390-6
[edit] Context
This article emphasizes the economic repercussions of health-related issues, particularly concerning diseases that impose physical and financial burdens. The authors make a persuasive case for the cost-effectiveness of interventions and sound warning about opportunity costs and economic costs of inaction on some of the principal global burdens of disease, underscoring the importance of resource allocation, the priority for health conditions, and the need for a rights oriented.
Moreover, the cost of not making direct interventions can be catastrophic and strategies for doing so are some of the most cost-effective in global health, they write. They refer to widespread mental, neurological, and substance use disorders, which worldwide have resurged as a result of under-resourcing.A central, fundamental mechanism by which governments perform this function is through adopting, implementing, and enforcing laws. Community interventions — such as active TB case-finding and directly observed therapy — are crucial in many settings. Strategic purchasing within publicly financed mechanisms should follow principles of prudent purchasing, and more work needs to be done in this area. The link between effective UHC and the growing concern for equality and human rights in health care and insurance is a clear one.
[edit] Overview
Mental, neurological, and substance use disorders are serious contributors to the global burden of disease. This burden is largely unrepresented in health care priorities and national health plans and has marked consequences for patient care and access. In essence, the authors argue simply this: “the cost of inaction far outweighs that of action.” Though the authors frame their analysis primarily in terms of the economic costs of ignoring investment in mental, neurological, and substance use disorders, they present qualitative and quantitative evidence, including the work of the Disease Control Priorities 3 team on cost-effectiveness, controlled intervention-efficacy trials, and the Global Burden of Disease study authors, that also argues that such investment will produce health and other, especially economic, benefits.
The authors address cost-effectiveness evidence related to the most common and important interventions for mental, neurological, and substance use disorders; the economic consequences of living with untreated or half-treated mental, neurological, and substance use disorders; and the economic cost of inaction. The authors conclude with priorities, which stress the importance of increased investment and greater integration into mainstream health care. Additionally, implicit throughout the discussion and more apparent in the final section, the authors identify many caveats about key facts and features of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders. There is more to learn about prevalence, harms caused by interventions, and the activity of the interventions. The authors discuss drugs, psychologic treatments, and social interventions and they present a set of important strategies for delivering the interventions: through enabling or legislative measures, by working through existing active social groups in society, through community-level interventions, and by working within health care.
The interventions in this analysis are expensive to scale up. Accordingly, the authors call for increased financial commitment, especially for low coverage areas such as drugs and for poor populations, protection from catastrophic expenses. The biggest challenge to scaling up interventions, they conclude, is to overcome the limitations of resources, poor governance, and the profound stigma attached to persons with mental, neurological, and substance use disorders.
The article serves as an urgent call for increased investment and equal and rational health policies and insurance platforms designed to improve access to health and social outcomes for people with mental, neurological, and substance use disorders.
[edit] Strengths and Weaknesses
The article has several strengths, the most obvious being its rigorous, nuanced, evidence-based treatment of the burden of illness from mental, neurological, and substance use disorders. Seldom is this underrepresented subject given such comprehensive treatment in health policy discourse. The economic consequences of such conditions are powerfully demonstrated, and the cost-effectiveness of interventions is persuasively argued. The argument closely follows the purpose of the article. It brings a critical economic perspective on equality and human rights in healthcare. The significant steps of the idea are all in place: the global picture of disease burden, economic consequences, the cost-effectiveness of interventions, and policy recommendations, all presented with logic and coherence. Evidence is well chosen and explained, supporting each qualitative and mainly quantitative claim. A range of effective interventions and strategies are available to be utilized at various levels of healthcare delivery, beginning with wide-scale population-level intervention platforms, to community-based interventions, and at the level of the healthcare delivery platform. The economic costs are detailed, and the need to allocate more resources to address these disorders is clear. The importance of government commitment and financial protection mechanisms are emphasized.
While this article provided sufficient details about its assumptions and potential barriers to implementing recommended interventions, further exploration into their complexities, particularly relating to potential obstacles to implementing their recommended interventions and how these could be addressed, would provide greater understanding. Also missing from the article were specific details regarding their feasibility as proposed interventions were never explored directly - with greater attention paid towards challenges and solutions related to implementation within different settings and increasing practical applicability would add another layer of depth and practical relevance for readers. In light of the rapid development of mental health discourse and policy, it may be a good addition for the authors to speak to recent accomplishments in the field. As the article was published in 2016, there could have been strides in the area or changes that would detract from the relevance or applicability of the suggestions.
As noted above, the authors highlight the economic costs of providing interventions such as these interventions while emphasizing increased resource allocation and financial protection measures; furthermore they address barriers to intervention scale-up such as limited resources, poor governance or stigma preventing their scaling-up. Essentially this article serves as an impassioned call for more inclusive, equitable, and economically feasible health policies and insurance platforms which offer better services and outcomes to individuals affected by mental, neurological or substance use disorders and increase access to services, with comprehensive overviews provided of each disorder's burden, interventions available and implementation challenges faced along these lines.
[edit] Assessment
The authors present an underexplored aspect of global health by exploring the economic effect of mental, neurological and substance use disorders on society as a whole. Their emphasis lies on cost-effective interventions compared to inaction as a potential economic consequence and revealed benefits associated with investment in interventions versus doing nothing about these disorders - providing valuable insight into their cost impacts while emphasizing equitable healthcare access as paramount considerations.
Xc18gb 08:22, 1 December 2023 (EST)
Please consider the environment before
printing this page.