Do political parties matter to health?

Abstract

Abstract Background Do political parties matter to health? Do they affect population health either directly, or through welfare states’ social policies and the eligibility, affordability and quality of health systems? And if they do, how? These are crucial questions if we are to understand health politics or shape public health policy, particularly given the changing landscape of both political parties, party dominance in the executive, and the possibly mediating influence of the legislature. Methods This review using a systematic approach examines 107 peer-reviewed articles and books published after 1978 about high-income countries asking the overarching question: Do political parties matter to health and the welfare state? Results As the literature relating parties to health directly was surprisingly thin, the welfare state was used as a ‘proxy’ variable. An overwhelming majority of the literature sample suggests that Left parties are inclined to expand the welfare state and avoid cutting benefits if possible, while the Right does not expand and tends to reduce benefits. There is an inflection in the 1980s when Left parties shift from expansion to maintaining the status quo. Conclusions Considering current health trends in the form of measles outbreaks, the “Deaths of Despair”, the return of presumed eradicated infectious diseases and the declining health expectancy rates in some Western countries as well as the rise of PRR parties in office we question the current partisanship thesis that political parties matter less and less.