Search

Unlike other aspects of welfare (e.g. income), health has been relatively neglected when it comes to defining and measuring aspects of poverty. The aim of the paper is twofold: first we elaborate how the concept of 'health poverty' can be defined and measured, and second we apply the methodology to study health poverty in a variety of cases. The measurement of health poverty allows us to gain insights into different sorts of health deprivation in society as a whole, and in specific subgroups. We measure poverty by means of the widely adopted Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) class of indicators and apply this to three different health variables: cardiovascular risk, health status and life expectancy. Moreover, the FGT class is additively decomposable, making it possible to gauge the contribution of specific subgroups to overall poverty. We provide two applications of these methods. Firstly, we examine changes in the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the United States using two waves of the NHANES survey from 2005-06 and 2013-14 (n = 3,014 and 4,001 respectively) and use a threshold of 20% 10 year CVD risk to define health poverty. Overall our results indicate a slight decline in the proportion at high CVD risk between these periods. Secondly, we apply poverty measures to health status as measured by the SF-6D index and to empirically derived predictions of life expectancy and estimated using 24,820 individuals from the first 15 waves of the Australian HILDA survey. Trends in poverty over time are compared using several thresholds and decomposed by a variety of sub-groups. Measures of health poverty can be an important instrument for focusing the attention on those with the worst health, or highest risk, in a society and should be used more widely. • Health poverty measures are useful to monitor deprivation in the domain of health. • Health poverty measures accord closely with threshold-based practices in medicine. • Poverty measures can be applied to disease risk, life expectancy and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the neo-liberal goal of global economic competitiveness when included alongside image-inspired social goals such as liveability and environmental goals such as sustainability can lead to policies that impact positively on health and health equity. The paper presents an analysis of the content and intent of strategic planning and transport plans from two Australian state governments. The analysis was undertaken using a thematic document analysis of each plan and interviews with agents (n = 21) directly involved in the preparation of each document. Key strategic documents formulated under a neo-liberal hegemony simultaneously provided and reduced opportunities to promote and advance health. The policies viewed goals like liveability and sustainability as means of enhancing their cities' image in global competition for exogenous capital flows. Although liveability has many definitions, one definition was able to be used in one jurisdiction as an avenue to include a broad array of social determinants of health into urban planning policy. However, a productivity or a narrowly focussed image narrative can undermine the social determinants of health credentials of liveability. Overemphasising immediate city problems like road congestion as mechanisms to enhance global competitiveness can undermine necessary long-term strategies for city planning that are known to improve liveability and human health. Even where liveability is at the fore, there is a high risk of exacerbating spatial inequities through liveability investments for competitive advantage because they tend to flow to parts of cities with the greatest connections to the global economy, not those with the greatest social need. A neo-liberal-inspired competitive city paradigm provides opportunities for the advancement of health in urban development. However, when driven by the goals of productivity and/or liveability as image enhancement it can potentially exacerbate health inequities. • Global competition has raised city image as an important policy consideration. • Liveability has become a normative planning goal due to its links with global image. • Liveability helps incorporate health objectives into urban planning policy. • Overriding emphasis on productivity can undermine health benefits of liveability. • Liveability as a goal has the potential to exacerbate health inequity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]