Latin American states have and continue to experience a diverse spectrum of political regimes. These shifts in political organization resonate throughout all aspects of a country's social and economic profile, with health status and care being no exception. Health systems develop through the interplay between political processes (both historical and ongoing), socioeconomic atmosphere and cultural influences. Therefore, the prevailing political regime cannot sufficiently categorize a country's subsequent healthcare system by default, as there are multidimensional variables involved. The reality of a healthcare regime is a product of the political nuances specific to each country.
[...] The characteristics and interplay of social classes in response to health regimes serve as another filtering process for how successfully health regimes will be executed or received. The external environment of a state's political regime is a crucial element in a health system's movement from theory to reality. Health systems exist in two realms, first within the internal political state, but also externally, where they are subject to the social and economic conditions of the population. Economic factors in particular are extremely influential yet often indirect determinants of a successful health system. [...]
[...] Yet the intricacies of social, political, and economic networks are what actually facilitate changes in the healthcare system. Although the overarching motives of a state's regime create the health reform climate, it is the internal stability and external characteristics of a regime that allow for its development. Latin American healthcare systems are subject to the fickleness of their political regimes, but the delicate interdependencies present in their formation and maturation make them realistic reflections of the true efficacy of the state. [...]
[...] Reform leads to shifts in thinking and direction of a state's overarching political motives, and it also heightens the influential relationships between political processes and social response. For example, reforms towards democracy offer outlets for less powerful classes to express their demands (through such manners as unions), whereas status quo regimes leave conditions unfavorable for community participation (Bossert 432). This correlation maps on to the delivery of health systems, and is catalyzed by the interests of the state's regime. In Chile's example, Chile's government kept healthcare decisions at a low priority, and their passivity towards nationalizing healthcare led to a very ineffective reform attempt. [...]
[...] With the Chilean militarized regime on 1973 in support of a socialistic style of resource provisioning, their healthcare reforms were directed at unifying and consolidating their health system. Yet Chile's regime lacked unifying power within itself, and their weakness proved disadvantageous, as it allowed for other power groups, such as class- concerned physicians, to undermine the proposed reforms (Waitzkin 237). Chile's lack of internal control is what held their reform movements captive in the planning stages, never able to truly mobilize and disseminate reform throughout the country. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee