Policy Implications Of The Gradient Of Health And Wealth

Abstract

Men in the United States with family incomes in the top 5 percent of the distribution in 1980 had about 25 percent longer to live than did those in the bottom 5 percent. Proportional increases in income are associated with equal proportional decreases in mortality throughout the income distribution. I discuss possible reasons for this gradient and ask whether it calls for the redistribution of income in the interest of public health. I argue that the existence of the gradient strengthens the case for income redistribution in favor of the poor but that targeting health inequalities would not be sound policy.

Poverty, Violence, and Health: The Impact of Domestic Violence During Pregnancy on Newborn Health

“…A large literature shows that those of low socio-economic status are characterized by worse health than their better-off counterparts and that differences in health often originate in childhood and even earlier, in the newborn period (see Case, Paxson and Lubotsky, 2002; Deaton, 2002; Cutler, Deaton and Lleras-Muney, 2006 and references therein). Explanations of the gradient include differences in access to medical care, health behaviors (such as smoking and drinking), time preferences, and social status\stress.…”

Social determinants of health: an economic perspective

“…A systematic review found 1 While we continue using the expression 'SES' as a comprehensive proxy, we emphasise that the precise choice of SES (i.e. income, education, occupation, or others) may make a great difference both in the assessment of the extent of socio-economic inequalities in health (Wagstaff and Watanabe, 2003) as well as for policy implications (Deaton, 2002). 2 Transitory fluctuations in income may only have a small influence on health (Contoyannis et al, 2004), compared with the strong influence of long term income (Case et al, 2001).…”

Changes in compulsory schooling and the causal effect of education on health: Evidence from Germany

“…This discussion is highly policy relevant because, among the components of socioeconomic status (education, income, and occupation), education seems to be the one that -in the long run -appears to be most amenable to public policy interventions. Moreover, as noted by Deaton (2002), it is important to frame social policy in terms of health and wealth simultaneously. Improving one at the expense of the other involves a difficult and probably unnecessary trade-off.…”