Poverty and health status are interrelated, and their effects on each other are often
bidirectional: poverty leads to poor health and poor health leads to poverty (1,2).
In addition, life challenges associated with poverty, whether short- or long-term,
create conditions that reduce household savings, lower learning ability, and reduce
physical and emotional well-being (1), all of which endanger people's health (1,2).
Many Mississippians, especially the 51% who live in rural counties (3), experience
poverty levels that are hard to imagine for most Americans. In particular, in recent
years poor Mississippians faced heavy job losses in industries that once provided
high wages and good benefits (4). These job losses led to decreases in annual income,
increases in bankruptcies, and a declining number of people with health insurance
(5). For example, from 2000 to 2003, median household incomes fell by $3,910 to $32,728,
and the number of poor people increased by 38,000 to 456,000 (5). Regardless of location,
poor people are more likely than affluent people to lack health insurance (6), so
we can assume that many of the 19% of respondents to the Mississippi Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System who said they had no health insurance are poor (7).
Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the nation (5). More than the poor in
other states, the poor in Mississippi receive inadequate education, have limited access
to quality health care, and experience personal and environmental risks that lead
to poor nutrition (5). Understanding the interaction between poverty and health in
Mississippi requires a candid discussion about poverty in the United States as a whole.
Those involved in this discussion should be public health professionals, clinicians,
policy makers, and professionals from fields (e.g., labor, agriculture) not always
associated with solving health-related issues. This discussion must be public and
include topics such as the root causes of poverty; the physical and emotional health
problems common to poor people, regardless of geographic location; the characteristics
of poor people; the personal, family, community, state, and national resources needed
to prevent poverty and its related adverse health effects; and the ingrained perceptions
that many middle-income and affluent people have about the poor. Without frank discussions
on those topics, devising innovative solutions to poverty-related health problems
in Mississippi (or the United States as a whole) will be difficult.
Poverty in Mississippi is similar to or worse than the poverty in some third world
countries (8), and articles in Mississippi newspapers frequently report on people's
experiences with poverty (8). Because Mississippi ranks high among states with a disproportionate
burden of chronic diseases, teenage pregnancy, and infant mortality, national newspapers
also cover poverty in Mississippi. A July 2004 Washington Post article entitled "Poverty
Tightens Grip On Mississippi Delta: Number of Young Rural Poor Rises, Study Says''
reported that 55% of households in Coahoma, Mississippi, a rural community of 350,
had incomes of less than $15,000 per year, well below the federal poverty line of
$18,850 for a family of four (9). The newspaper article continued:
The human faces of poverty for many Americans are the inner-city homeless who sleep
on grates, beg on corners and line up, mornings and afternoons, at local parks for
a cup of soup and a sandwich. But of the 50 counties with the highest child-poverty
rates, 48 are rural American. Compared with urban areas, unemployment is typically
higher, education poorer and services severely limited because people are so spread
out . . .. A lot of people believe it's got to be cheap to live there [rural area]
and food has got to be more available. But cheap is relative to income. Your ability
to move yourself around is limited. There is no public transportation.
And the effects of poverty go beyond the individual. Poverty affects a community's
ability to support capital improvements; to build and maintain schools; to provide
health care services; and to provide policing, social, and sanitation services. It
seems obvious that poor people experience a high burden of disease, often die prematurely,
and have a poor quality of life (10). What is not so obvious is that the health of
the poor appears to worsen as the national gap between rich and poor widens (10).
George Kaplan and colleagues defined measures of income inequality and compared them
with various rates of disease and social problems (e.g., incarceration, unemployment)
in each of the 50 U.S. states (10). They found that the greater the inequality in
the distribution of income, the higher the rates of 1) unemployment and incarceration,
2) people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and 3) people without medical
insurance. States with the greatest reported inequality of income distribution spent
less per person on education, had fewer books per person in schools, and had poorer
education performance (e.g., poorer reading skills and math scores, lower rates of
high school completion) than states where the gap between rich and poor is not as
pronounced (10). The researchers also reported that states with the greatest inequality
of income had the highest costs per person for police protection and medical care
(10).
Regardless of people's race, short-term poverty can have as much of a negative effect
on their health as long-term poverty. Using data from 1968 through 1995 from the American
Panel Study of Income Dynamics, McDonough and colleagues (11) found that people who
were never poor were the healthiest and people who were always poor were the least
healthy. Surprisingly, they also found that people who overcame poverty or became
poor over time — especially if they were elderly, not well educated, and not white
— had a similar health risk to the risk of those who were always poor.
Opinions on how to overcome poverty in Mississippi, the nation, and around the world
range from putting the onus on individuals to emerge out of poverty by their own efforts
to requiring increases in government spending on antipoverty programs through increased
taxes (12). Some believe that tax cuts promote economic growth, which then improves
economic equality for all. Others believe a combination of individual responsibility
and government programs is required (12). One factor is certain: poverty challenges
the belief that individuals are solely responsible for their own well-being. Without
outside help, few among the poor can overcome limited access to good quality education
for their children, limited means to purchase nutritional foods, and limited access
to good quality health care.
The cycle of poverty and poor health requires a balance of interventions from public
health professionals, environmentalists, and people working in areas that greatly
affect health (e.g., labor, trade, agriculture). We must focus on the health consequences
of poverty. By doing so, we can break the cycle of poverty leading to ill health and
ill health leading to poverty. And we must focus not only on issues related to physical
health, but also on issues related to mental health (e.g., isolation, hopelessness,
chronic stress, depression) (13). Poor Mississippians, like most Americans who live
in poverty, want desirable jobs so they can provide for their families, afford decent
housing in safe neighborhoods, have their children attend and graduate from good schools,
have access to good medical care, and be treated with respect despite their poverty.
International experts say that until poverty is reduced, health issues among the world's
poor will look no different in the future than they do today (14). Acknowledging the
effect of poverty on health is a start, but the real work involves public health professionals
strategizing and working with traditional and nontraditional partners to reduce poverty.
I am encouraged by the work of the World Health Organization (WHO), which recommends
four strategies to improve the health of the poor throughout the world (15). These
strategies are also relevant to improving the health of poor rural Mississippians:
Act on the determinants of health by influencing policy. According to WHO, equitable
distribution of the benefits of economic growth is central to reducing poverty. Maximize
the health benefits of economic growth through public policies related to labor, trade,
agriculture, environment, and health. Such policies affect people at each stage of
life. Getting such policies implemented, however, requires collaborations and networks
between public health and many other sectors of society.
Ensure that health systems serve the poor effectively. Beyond ensuring that communities
have the capacity to provide optimal health services, public health agencies must
address the characteristics that cause health care systems to fail the poor. WHO recommends,
at a minimum, that health care systems ensure access irrespective of income and that
the poor are treated with dignity and respect, thus protecting the poor from unsafe
practices and financial exploitation.
Focus on the health problems that disproportionately affect the poor. WHO proposes
providing governments with the tools and guidelines they need to set up the best and
most cost-effective interventions to tackle health challenges that disproportionately
affect the poor in their countries. Similarly, U.S. public health agencies need to
provide Mississippi with technical assistance and resources so that its state and
local health departments, other state agencies, universities, and nongovernmental
organizations can set up interventions to prevent or control diseases that disproportionately
affect poor rural Mississippians.
Reduce health risks through a broad approach to public health. Improve poor people's
access to basic public services (e.g., clean water, modern sanitation). In addition,
recognize that poor people are more likely to be exposed to violence and environmental
hazards and more likely to suffer as a result of conflicts and natural disasters than
are affluent people. Planning and preparing for emergencies is particularly critical
and requires participation not only by people with experience and expertise in first
response and emergency management, but also by people from diverse groups (e.g., sanitation
specialists, chronic disease specialists).
The consequences of poverty become abundantly apparent during natural disasters such
as Hurricane Katrina. It is true that a natural disaster of Katrina's magnitude does
not distinguish between rich and poor. However, as Milio (16) reported in 2006, "it
is undeniable and troubling that the majority of those affected by Katrina were among
our nation's poorest individuals and families even before the storm hit." Historically,
public health specialized in responding to health crises during natural disasters
by capturing and analyzing epidemiologic data and intervening to reduce or minimize
the negative health consequences associated with the disaster itself. Recently, public
health expanded its response to disasters by intervening to prevent the chronic diseases
of those displaced by disasters from worsening. This change in policy is a good step
toward helping poor people suffer less as a result of natural disasters.
But more needs to be done. Undeniably, the relationship between poverty and health
is complex. Finding new methods of intervening will require many of us working in
public health to think differently, partner differently, challenge stereotypes about
the poor (17), and listen more carefully than ever to poor people themselves. Furthermore,
public health professionals should consider incorporating successful clinical interventions
into public health practice, collaborating with nontraditional partners (e.g., labor
unions, public policy makers, trade associations), and researching the effectiveness
of interventions in poor, underserved rural communities. In a speech delivered in
1964, Dr George James, Health Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health,
commented (18):
Medicine is only part of the attack upon poverty. Just as we are learning in medicine
to consider the whole human being and his entire family, so we are going to have to
mount a comprehensive attack against poverty. Public health people alone cannot do
it. Politicians alone cannot do it; nor can it be done just in the city, just in the
country, or just in Appalachia or any other region. It must be across the board.
Recent public health research (19) explored the role of social determinants — largely
how to measure their effects — in poverty, thus no longer ignoring their once minimized
or dismissed role in shaping people's health. One caveat, however: even when public
health has new ideas about how to improve poor people's health, we must be careful
not to impose these new ideas on poor communities without consulting with its members
first. Clearly, poor communities — indeed all communities, rich or poor — are more
likely to accept and participate in public health interventions if they are developed
in concert with community members and if they incorporate community competencies and
assets than if the interventions are developed by outsiders without consultation with
those who are supposed to benefit. However, making culturally tailored public health
interventions available and providing access to health services is not sufficient
if the underlying social determinants of poor health go ignored (19,20).
I invite my fellow public health professionals to join the fight against poverty and
poverty-related ill health throughout the United States and the world. And I suggest
that a good place to start a major offensive in that fight is rural Mississippi.