Quantcast

NYC Gazette

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Political divide impacts US health policies

Webp vfattgaezc76f4j9qzyrc2qqxv4i

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics and International Business at New York University's Stern School of Business | New York University's Stern School of Business

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics and International Business at New York University's Stern School of Business | New York University's Stern School of Business

The ongoing political polarization in the United States is posing significant health risks, according to a new analysis published in Nature Medicine. The study indicates that such polarization hinders the implementation of health policies, discourages individual health actions like vaccinations, and spreads misinformation that erodes trust in healthcare professionals.

"Compared to other high-income countries, the United States has a disadvantage when it comes to the health of its citizens," said Jay Van Bavel, a professor at New York University's Department of Psychology and one of the authors of the analysis. "America’s growing political polarization is only exacerbating this shortcoming."

The study reviewed over 100 experimental papers and reviews, suggesting ways to mitigate the impact of polarization on public health. Kai Ruggeri from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health emphasized trust as a key solution: "Division is a major problem and the one real solution is trust. Public health agencies need to work with trusted voices and leaders."

Eric Knowles from NYU's Department of Psychology and Shana Kushner Gadarian from Syracuse University's Department of Political Science also contributed to this comprehensive review. It examined Americans' attitudes toward opposing parties over four decades, behaviors during the coronavirus pandemic, and international data comparisons.

Partisan animosity has increased steadily since 1980. By 2020, more Americans expressed hatred for the opposite party than love for their own—a shift from trends observed between 1980 and 2008.

The research found that individuals who are ideologically extreme tend to have poorer physical and mental health. Polarization affects what health information people accept or reject based on partisan alignment rather than scientific validity.

Republicans were less likely than Democrats to enroll in marketplace insurance plans through Obamacare after its provisions took effect. This led to disparities in sick days, healthcare premiums, and mortality rates.

Policy polarization has also led to varying lifespans across states; those with progressive policies tend to have longer lifespans compared to states with conservative approaches.

Skepticism from Republican leaders during COVID-19 further polarized public behavior concerning preventive measures like vaccination. Similar trends were observed internationally; however, studies show that polarization—not ideology—poses a greater risk factor for public health.

Van Bavel reiterated his concern: "Compared to other high-income countries, the United States has a disadvantage when it comes to the health of its citizens. America’s growing political polarization is only exacerbating this shortcoming."

The analysis notes that outcomes are not inevitable if policy decisions prioritize reducing polarization's harm. For instance, Canadian leaders took different approaches than U.S. counterparts during COVID-19, resulting in lower illness rates.

Authors recommend specific strategies for officials and healthcare professionals: emphasizing shared identities with target populations, communicating adherence levels instead of failures in guidelines compliance, utilizing trusted civic leaders for message dissemination, and debunking misinformation effectively.

Gadarian highlighted the global nature of this issue: "Polarization is not only an American concern but one that is increasing in many countries."

MORE NEWS