This paper explores whether constitutional litigation contributes to sustaining the equity element of the right to health. Equity entails a fair distribution of the burden of healthcare financing across the different socio-economic groups of the population. A shift towards uncontrolled private healthcare provision and financing raises equity challenges by disproportionately benefitting those who are able to afford such services. The extent to which equity is enforced is an indicator of the strength of the right to health. However, do domestic constitutional courts second-guess, based on equity, policy decisions that impact on healthcare financing? Is it the task of constitutional courts to scrutinize such policy decisions? Under what conditions are courts more likely to do so? The paper addresses these questions by focusing on the case of Hungary, where the right to health has been present in the Fundamental Law adopted in 2010 and the Constitutions preceding it. While the Hungarian Constitutional Court has been traditionally cautious to review policy decisions pertaining to healthcare financing, the system has been struggling with equity issues and successive government coalitions have had limited success in tackling these. The paper discusses the role of constitutional litigation in addressing such equity concerns. In doing so, it contributes to the discussion on the role of domestic constitutional courts in the protection of social and economic rights.
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Learning is essential for sustainable employability. However, various factors make work-related learning more difficult for certain groups of workers, who are consequently at a disadvantage in the labour market. In the long term, that in turn can have adverse health implications and can make those groups vulnerable. With a view to encouraging workers to continue learning, the Netherlands has a policy on work-related learning, which forms part of the 'Vitality Package'.Aim: A Health Impact Assessment with equity focus (HIAef) was undertaken to determine whether the policy on work-related learning affected certain groups of workers and their health in different ways, and whether the differences were avoidable.Methods: The HIAef method involved the standard phases: screening, scoping, appraisal and recommendations. Equity was the core principle in this method. Data were collected by means of both literature searches (e.g., Scopus, Medline) and interviews with experts and stakeholders (e.g., expertise regarding work, training and/or health).Results: The HIAef identified the following groups as potentially vulnerable in the field of work-related learning: the chronically sick, older people, less educated people, flexi-workers/the self-employed and lay carers (e.g., thresholds to learning). Published literature indicates that work-related learning may have a positive influence on health through (work-related) factors such as pay, employability, longer employment rate and training-participation. According to experts and stakeholders, work-related learning policy could be adapted to take more account of vulnerable groups through alignment with their particular needs, such as early support, informal learning and e-learning.Conclusion: With a view to reducing avoidable inequalities in work-related learning, it is recommended that early, low-threshold, accessible opportunities are made available to identified vulnerable groups. Making such opportunities available may have a positive effect on (continued) participation in the labour market and thus on the health of the relevant groups.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The INHERIT (INtersectoral Health and Environment Research for InnovaTion) project has evaluated intersectoral cooperation (IC) in 12 European case studies attempting to promote health, environmental sustainability, and equity through behavior and lifestyle changes. These factors are the concerns of multiple sectors of government and society. Cooperation of health and environmental sectors with other sectors is needed to enable effective action. IC is thus essential to promote a triple win of health, sustainability, and equity.OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the design of a qualitative study to gain insights into successful organization of IC, facilitators and barriers, and how future steps can be taken to improve IC in the evaluated case studies.METHODS: Each case study was assessed qualitatively through a focus group. A total of 12 focus groups in 10 different European countries with stakeholders, implementers, policymakers, and/or citizens were held between October 2018 and March 2019. Five to eight participants attended each focus group. The focus group method was based on appreciative inquiry, which is an asset-based approach focusing on what works well, why it is working well, and how to strengthen assets in the future. A stepped approach was used, with central coordination and analysis, and local implementation and reporting. Local teams were trained to apply a common protocol using a webinar and handbook on organizing, conducting, and reporting focus groups. Data were gathered in each country in the local language. Translated data were analyzed centrally using deductive thematic analysis, with consideration of further emerging themes. Analyses involved the capability, opportunity, motivation-behavior (COM-b) system to categorize facilitators and barriers into capability, motivation, or opportunity-related themes, as these factors influence the behaviors of individuals and groups. Web-based review sessions with representatives from all local research teams were held to check data analysis results and evaluate the stepped approach.RESULTS: Data collection has been completed. A total of 76 individuals participated in 12 focus groups. In December 2019, data analysis was nearly complete, and the results are expected to be published in fall 2020.CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes a stepped approach that allows cross-country focus group research using a strict protocol while dealing with language and cultural differences. The study generates insights into IC processes and facilitators in different countries and case studies to filter out which facilitators are essential to include. Simultaneously, the approach can strengthen cooperation among stakeholders by looking at future cooperation possibilities. By providing knowledge on how to plan for, improve, and sustain IC successfully to deal with today's multisectoral challenges, this study can contribute to better intersectoral action for the triple win of better health, sustainability, and equity. This protocol can serve as a tool for other researchers who plan to conduct cross-country qualitative research.INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/17323.
DOCUMENT
