Analyze

“In bringing ethnographic attention to hot spotting as a technique of governance, we find that it provides lifesaving humanitarian interventions while operating within the racialized structures of violence that produce continual life crises. The institutional rationality of hotspotting and the encounters of care that it produces illustrate the often-contradictory role of medicine in the lives of poor people: both caring and coercive, it intertwines care and violence.” 475; “we conclude by suggesting that economic investment and return are becoming a reigning logic in the governance of poverty, generating hot spots as sites of interest for both policing and health care and decentering normative assessments of deviance, illness, and social problems” 476; “Neoliberal social assistance, as it is practiced in the health care safety net, is conceptualized as an “investment “in the population, as a strategic and targeted deployment of basic resources, one that promises to generate a return on investment for the state or health system in the form of cost savings.“ 485

The authors examine the practice of “hot spotting,” a form of surveillance and intervention through which health care systems in the US intensively direct health and social services towards high-cost patients.  Health care hot spotting is seen as a way to improve population health while also reducing financial expenditures on healthcare for impoverished people. The authors argue that argue that ultimately hot spotting targets zones of racialized urban poverty—the same neighborhoods and individuals that have long been targeted by the police. These practices produce “a convergence of caring and punitive strategies of governance” (474). The boundaries between the spaces of healthcare and policing have shifted as a “financialized logic of governance has come to dominate both health and criminal justice” (474).

The authors offer a review of themes within occupational health and environmental public health surveillance over the past decade. In reviewing the history of public health surveillance, the authors highlight key acts of Congress in the 1970s that have made the development of “modern” occupational health and environmental health surveillance possible—but which also failed to develop into a cohesive and well-connected data management systems across federal agencies. Separate agencies were tasked with different data collection, management and intervention tasks in ways that fragmented the surveillance system to the point of ineffectiveness.

The authors argue that effective surveillance for occupational and environmental health demands development of a clear purpose for collecting data and having the data available to make meaningful analysis possible. They turn to the CDC’s childhood lead prevention program to demonstrate these points.

Public Health Alliance of Southern California. California Healthy Places Index. 2019. https://healthyplacesindex.org.

© 2018 Public Health Alliance of Southern California

Permission is hereby granted to use, reproduce, and distribute these materials for noncommercial purposes, including educational, government and community uses, with proper attribution to the Public Health Alliance of Southern California including this copyright notice. Use of this publication does not imply endorsement by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California.

© 2018 California Department of Public Health (CDPH)

Permission is hereby granted to use, reproduce, and distribute these materials for noncommercial purposes, including educational, government, and community uses, with proper attribution to the CDPH, including this copyright notice. Use of this publication does not imply endorsement by the CDPH.

The index does not include certain neighborhood characteristics critical to health because they did not meet the criteria for inclusion (described in question 3). For instance, this included physician ratios (the number of physicians per 100,000 population) because data was missing for a majority of census tracts. In fact, the steering committee was unable to locate much data on health care access or quality at the census-tract level (only data on health care insurance coverage was available).  

 The index was previously critiqued in ways that led to a shift from framing data in terms of “disadvantage” towards a framework of “opportunity”. This led to not only a renaming of the index (from “the Health Disadvantage Index to the Healthy Places Index) but also a shift in reporting of data (e.g. highlight the percentage of the population with a BA degree or higher rather than the percentage of population without a college degree). 

The HPI is also limited in terms of the effects of confounding, with some indicators with strong evidence of health effects showing contrary associations with life expectancy at birth by census tract. The steering committee has also acknowledged that the HPI might not be accurate for census tracts undergoing rapid population change (e.g. due to immigration, rapid gentrification, or other changes).

The HPI notably does not correlate strongly with CalEnviroScreen, which the steering committee for the HPI noted failed to identify one-third of census tracts with the worst conditions for population health. The HPI is ultimately more centered on considering environmental factors as a part of overall health, rather than as a central determinant. However, this disconnect between CalEnviroScreen and the HPI may also be a reflection of the challenges environmental injustice advocates have faced in linking environmental factors to health outcomes (which might not be as visible and geographically direct as the links between health and other indicators).