1.0.

Introduction

Socioeconomic disparities in health are unfair discrepancies in health between various groups
in society. Because of the Black Report of 1980, researchers have sought to better investigate
who and what causes health inequality in order to come up with strategies to minimise them.
There is a large body of evidence that demonstrates the presence of social health disparities.
People with greater education, position, and money had much lower mortality and morbidity.
Although socioeconomic inequities in health occur everywhere (Beckfield et al.2013),
different regions have varying degrees of disparity, and there are considerable discrepancies
across European nations. (Beckfield and Olafsdottir 2009). Concerns about health inequality
across European countries have increased as an increasing number of studies investigate the
correlation between these inequalities and the existence of welfare throughout Europe
(Bergqvist et al. 2013). This essay focuses on inequalities in health and illness that are driven
by social, economic, and environmental changes to changes in morbidity and mortality in the
UK.
2.0. Findings

Impact of social, economic and environmental developments to changes in morbidity

and mortality in the UK

Health inequality tend to take the shape of a “social gradient,” in which the socioeconomic
position in society has a direct impact on one's health and levels of impairment. The two
major discoveries from research on the causes of health disparities are: Socioeconomic status
has a significant influence on health through affecting a host of intermediate variables, which
in turn have a far greater impact on health. Exposures to the environment and detrimental
behaviours may all affect the well-being of the population. For example, in the case of The
Bradleys, an elderly couple who live close to the shops at the bottom end of the road,

The potential threats posed by the environment may take two forms: physical (unsanitary
living conditions, workplace hazards, pollution, traffic dangers, etc.) and psychosocial (stress,
psychological strain, burnout, and emotional upset) (e.g. unsupportive family relationships,
stressful life events). For instance, the living condition of The Bradleys is heartbroken as it is
stated that they sleep downstairs due to the fact that upstairs is damp and dirty. Moreover, as
they live at the bottom of the road where noise is horrendous, it is also affecting their health
negative. Like Bert having memory problem. This could be due to noise in the environment
(Stansfeld, Haines & Brown, 2000). It is important to look at all health-determining variables
while thinking about different health consequences in mental illness, for instance, the social
environment has a bigger influence than in accidental accidents, where the external structure,
especially road transport, is a deciding element.

Also, children and adults in lower situations are more exposed to harmful surroundings and
are thus more prone to participate in harmful behaviour. An unequal exposure to health
hazards begins at conception, and is much more severe throughout the rest of one's life. Also,
since the mother is deficient in nutrition, the unborn child will be undernourished and be
susceptible to various illnesses, including coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes later in
life (Barker, 1998). Unfair health risk vulnerabilities are ongoing throughout childhood. in
addition, kids from lower-income households are more apt to live in congested and under-
equipped houses; they are also more liable to have strained relationships with their families
and other significant life experiences (Power & Matthews 1997). This is applicable to The
Huntleys’ 17-year-old son who had been dabbing in various drugs. This implies that the son
has a strained relationship with his parents. Poor early circumstances 'cast long shadows' over
adult health.

3. Patterned inequality in health and illness

Health has numerous descriptions, which can include an absence of illness or disability, the
presence of certain functionality like physiological or psychological potency, or alternative
explanations but regardless of how one sees health, it does have inequalities. Health and
disease are not uniform. These inequalities have certain trends or patterns. For example,
health correlates with intelligence, income, and various lifestyle choices. Thus we can see
patterns in which certain people have better health or less illness than others. This is
applicable to the scenario provided. Of all the three families, The Bradleys’ health is bad
compared to the other two. There is also relevant difference in other demographic areas, such
as sex or ethnicity. This can be related to a couple of racist incidents in the area where The
Khans lived, with some name calling. These inequalities occur in part due to biological
differences. Let's use ethnicity as an example. Some people are predisposed to different
illnesses, while others are not. This is because various cultural groups may practise healthy or
unhealthy diets, respectively. For example, The Bradleys and The Huntleys, although in
different environment, practice unhealthy diet compare to The Khans who adopted healthy
diet.

4. Protected Characteristics

The Equality Act encompasses age, disability, gender, gender identity, race, religion, and
sexual orientation. Prior to this, they were referred to as protected characteristics. The Act
expands the range of legal safeguards to previously under-represented characteristics, and it
also reinforces certain existing points of equality legislation.

 Age (no change) 

The Act safeguards all age groups (Equality Act 2010). It is not illegal age-based bigotry if it
can be explained (for example if you can demonstrate that it is a proportionate means of
meeting a legitimate aim). In addition to being protected by the state and federal anti-
discrimination laws, age is the sole factor that enables employers to defend direct
discrimination

 Disability (new definition and changes)

Disability discrimination has become easy to show because of the Act (Equality Act 2010). A
person is considered handicapped under the Act if they have a physical or cognitive disability
that has a significant and long-term negative impact on their daily tasks, such as using a
phone, reading a book, or utilising public transit.

The Act contains a new measure that protects people from being discriminated against
because of their handicap (Equality Act 2010). It is prejudice to subject an individual with a
handicap to unfair treatment because of anything related to their impairment (for example, a
tendency to make spelling mistakes arising from dyslexia). It is illegal for an employer or any
individual working on the employer's behalf to discriminate against a person because of their
handicap. Discrimination is only justified if it serves a useful purpose and is reasonably
necessary.

 Gender reassignment (new definition)

The law protects transgender individuals (Equality Act 2010). A transsexual is an individual
who wants to, is in the process of, or has already had gender reassignment surgery. With the
passage of the Act, individuals no longer need to be under medical observation in order to
have their personal safety and autonomy safeguarded. So a female who chooses to live as a
male but does not perform any surgical operations would be protected.

This is discrimination if employers treat trans individuals differently for skipping workplace
due to gender reassignment, relative to other absences due to illness or injury (Equality Act
2010).  As portion of the evaluation of Sickness Absence, this factor will be included and
incorporated into the revised policy (Equality Act 2010).

Additionally, one of the strengths of health survey is that data sets are made widely available
over the internet at no cost to the user. Furthermore, health survey samples are not large
enough to produce reliable estimates of the levels or trends of some relatively rare
phenomena, such as maternal mortality. This is however one the limitation of health survey.

5. Relationship between theories of health and welfare inequalities and their impact on
the development of health policies.

In all of the many studies looking at the inequalities in health, there has been a reliance on a
structural theory of health (Black et al., 1980). It is believed that inequalities in
socioeconomic status (income, wealth, power, environment, and access) affect everyone's
health throughout the life cycle (Krieger 2001). This is true in the case of the three families.
Environment factors is affecting The Bradleys, while income factor is affecting the other two
families. It is almost certain that 'material' variables, that is, vulnerability to limited income
and to various physical environments' unhealthy characteristics, are closely intertwined with
the causation. All European nations have significant disparities in the distribution of income.
A study conducted by Eurostat revealed that 20% of the EU-25's population had the greatest
income in 2001, while the 20% of the populace with the smallest income earned 4.5 times
less than they had in 2001. About 15% of the EU population faces the danger of poverty,
which is perceived as having an income just under 60% of the EU average. While income
inequality and poverty rates are different across nations, part due to income tax and social
security variations, it is very likely to be essential to explain health inequities in all the EU
countries in terms of financial disadvantage. The lack of financial resources may impact a
person's health in a variety of ways, such as the resulting psychological stress and increased
risk-taking behaviours like smoking and excessive alcohol use, less health-promoting
facilities and so on. The is true in the case of Mrs. Huntleys as she drinks more than she can
handle and wake up with handover.

Other ‘material' factors that have been found to make significant contributions to the
explanation of some health inequalities include occupational health risks (e.g. exposure to
chemicals, workplace hazards, physically strenuous work) and housing health risks (e.g.
crowding, dampness, workplace hazards). This is true in the case of The Bradleys as their
house has not been touched for over thirty years and is described by neighbours as being in a
bad state. As a result, it is damp and dirty

From all of the aforementioned, it is essential to realise the policy consequences. Reducing

health disparities can't be anticipated to make much of a difference because of policies meant
to promote healthier behaviours. While adjustments in the allocation of authority, money,
wealth, or in the legal regimes in society may not be able to effectively impact change,
political discourse which focuses only on the need for “cultural transformation” does not
provide the required focus or action. The evidence supporting structural interference in one
area over the next is inconsistent (Bambra et al., 2010), although those with the largest
consequences (e.g. the small income differentials and the power democratising) appear to be
more likely to reduce disparities (Navarro et al., 2006).
Conclusion

In the event of uncontrollable variables, such as lifestyle, geographic location, or medical

insurance coverage, English people consistently face systematic, unjust, and preventable
disparities in their health, access to healthcare, and chances to pursue healthy lifestyles.
Initiatives to confront health disparities must include in the intricate factors that make up a
person's health inequalities, or they may be useless or even damaging. Efforts to address
health disparities linked to behavioural hazards (such as bad diets), for example, should
include the broader network that affects these conducts (such as availability to cheap
nutritious food, marketing and ads) and their effect on health outcomes (such as access to
clinical services). While health inequalities are not inescapable, they are neither fixed nor
static. What the evidence indicates is that a well-rounded strategy may help (Buck 2017).
Action at many fronts is required to address the root causes of health disparities. The whole
health and care system is, but also much beyond, the scope of this description. In the near
future, we will elaborate on our stance on health disparities.
REFERENCES

Bambra, C., Gibson, M., Sowden, A., Wright, K., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M. (2010).
Tackling the wider social determinants of health and health inequalities: evidence
from systematic reviews. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health ;64:284–91.

Barker D.J.P. (1998). Mothers, Babies and Health in Later Life, Churchill Livingstone,
Edinburgh.

Beckfield, J. and Sigrun O. (2009). “Empowering Health: A Comparative Political Sociology

of Health Disparities.” Perspectives on Europe 39(2):9-12.

Beckfield, J., Sigrun O. and Elyas B. (2013). “Health Inequalities in Global Context.”
American Behavioral Scientist 57(8):1014-1039.

Bergqvist, K., Yngwe, M. Å., & Lundberg, O. (2013). Understanding the role of welfare state
characteristics for health and inequalities–an analytical review.BMC public health,
13(1), 1234.

Black, D., Morris, J.N., Smith, C., & Townsend, P. (1980). The Black report. In Inequalities
in health. London: Penguin;

Buck, D. (2017). “Reducing inequalities in health: towards a brave old world?”

TheKing’sFund [online]. Available at:
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2017/08/reducing-inequalities-health-towards-
brave-old-world (accessed on 12th July 2021).

Equality Act 2010, c.15. [Online]. Available at:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2 (accessed on 10th July 2021)

Krieger, N. (2001). Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st Century: an eco-social
perspective. International Journal of Epidemiology; 30:668–77

Kuh D., Hardy R., Langenberg C., Richards R. & Wadsworth M.E.J. (2002). Mortality in
adults aged 26-54 related to socioeconomic conditions in childhood and adulthood:
post-war birth cohort study, British Medical Journal, 325, 1076-80.

Navarro, V., Muntaner, C., Borrell, C., Benach, J., Quiroga, Á., RodríguezSanz, M., (2006).
Politics and health outcomes. Lancet; 368:1033–7
Power C. & Matthews S. (1997). Origins of health inequalities in a national population
sample, The Lancet, 350, 1584-89.

Stansfeld, S., Haines, M., & Brown, B. (2000). Noise and health in the urban environment.
Reviews on Environmental Health, 15(1–2), 43–82