We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
June 2019 (Volume 97)
May 2019 | Valarie K. Blake, Mark L. Hatzenbuehler | Original Scholarship
Context: Stigma is conceptualized as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Antidiscrimination law is one important lever that can influence stigma-based health inequities, and yet several challenges currently limit the law’s potential to address them.
Methods: To determine whether antidiscrimination law adequately addresses stigma, we compared antidiscrimination law for its applicability to the domains and statuses where stigma is experienced according to the social science literature. To further examine whether law is a sufficient remedy for stigma, we reviewed law literature and government sources for the adequacy of antidiscrimination law enforcement. We also reviewed the law literature for critiques of antidiscrimination law, which revealed conceptual limits of antidiscrimination
law that we applied to the context of stigma.
Findings: In this article, we explored the importance of antidiscrimination law in addressing the population-level health consequences of stigma and found two key challenges—conceptualization and enforcement—that currently limit its potential. We identified several practical solutions to make antidiscrimination law a more available tool to tackle the health inequities caused by stigma, including (1) the development of a new surveillance system for antidiscrimination laws and their enforcement, (2) an interdisciplinary working group to study the impact of antidiscrimination laws on health, and (3) a central agency tasked with monitoring enforcement of antidiscrimination laws.
Conclusions: Antidiscrimination law requires better tailoring based on the evidence of who is affected by stigma, as well as where and how stigma occurs, or it will be a poor tool for remedying stigma, regardless of its level of enforcement. Further interdisciplinary research is needed to identify the ways in which law can be crafted into a better tool for redressing the health harms of stigma and to delimit clearer boundaries for when law is and is not the appropriate remedy for these stigma-induced inequities.
Keywords: stigma, antidiscrimination law, civil rights protections, population health.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Published in 2019
Meanings and Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for Health Care Systems
Normalizing Tobacco? The Politics of Trade, Investment, and Tobacco Control
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund