Health Consequences of Political Divides: A New Analysis Reveals the Risks

“When we compare the United States to other wealthy nations, it’s clear that our citizens face unique health challenges,” states Jay Van Bavel, a psychology professor at New York University and a contributor to the study published in Nature Medicine. “The rising political polarization is worsening this issue.”

Yet, despite these challenges, the analysis—which reviewed over 100 studies—identified possible strategies to lessen the health impact of polarization and enhance healthcare practices.

“Divisiveness is a significant issue, and building trust is the most effective remedy. Public health organizations should partner with trusted community leaders to disseminate information, address public concerns thoughtfully, and engage with the community,” explains Kai Ruggeri, a professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and co-author of the paper. “In an era when some individuals turn to celebrities rather than medical professionals for health decisions, establishing direct engagement with these figures is crucial.”

The study also involved Eric Knowles, a psychology professor at NYU, and Shana Kushner Gadarian, a political science professor at Syracuse University. It examined 40 years of American opinions about political parties, health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and data from other nations.

Over the last four decades, the authors noted a rise in partisan hostility in the US. By 2020, many Americans reported feelings of “hate” toward the opposing political party, whereas previously, from 1980 to 2008, there was more “love” for one’s own party than “hate” for the opposite. However, since 2016, more individuals have expressed “hate” towards opponents than “love” for their own party.

In their research and review of existing studies, the authors explored various healthcare studies, revealing several key insights:

• As individuals stray further from the political center—regardless of direction—there are declines in both individual and public health indicators, such as trust in medical professionals and engagement in healthy behaviors, including diets and vaccinations. Those with stronger ideologies than their state’s average exhibit poorer physical and mental health.
• Polarization influences which health information individuals are willing to accept, impacting their subsequent actions. This can result in either dismissing factual information or believing false claims based on the political allegiance of the information source.
• Political figures, both in the US and abroad, may exacerbate public health issues by aligning health behaviors with party identities rather than following medical advice, thus undermining professional expertise and science-based approaches. This can lead to hostility towards healthcare professionals and the medical system.
• Republicans were less inclined than Democrats to participate in health insurance marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) after its rollout, contributing to increased absenteeism from work, higher healthcare costs, and mortality rates.
• As policy distinctions between states sharpen over time, disparities in lifespan and health also widen—individuals residing in states with more progressive social policies, such as better Medicaid access, stricter tobacco regulations, and higher minimum wages tend to live longer compared to those in conservative states.
• After Republican leaders expressed doubt regarding COVID-19 preventive measures, partisan media echoed this sentiment, leading to widening gaps in social distancing and vaccination rates between parties, even amidst clear evidence of health risks.
• These patterns are not exclusive to the US; a study of 23 European nations showed that partisan polarization accounted for nearly 39% of the differences in vaccination rates.
• Interestingly, another examination of 67 countries found minimal correlation between political ideology and support for public health initiatives, indicating that polarization itself might pose a greater risk to public health than left/right ideological divisions.

The authors assert that while polarization presents a risk for health crises, such outcomes are not predetermined. They reference a study contrasting leadership in the US with Canada during the pandemic, noting that Canadian leaders’ more cooperative approach resulted in lower rates of illness and mortality.

This and similar research delineate practical steps public officials and healthcare advocates can take, as outlined by the authors of Nature Medicine:

• Emphasize shared identities between health officials and target demographics, encompassing shared party affiliations, national identities, or nonpartisan identities.
• Communicate statistics on public adherence to health guidelines instead of focusing on those not complying.
• Leverage community leaders—such as religious figures, athletes, and military personnel—to enhance and diversify health messages from national and local authorities.
• Challenge misinformation with strategies like fact-checking and pre-bunking.

“The issue of polarization transcends American borders, becoming increasingly relevant in various countries,” remarks Syracuse’s Gadarian. “This emphasizes the need to invest in research dedicated to understanding and mitigating its effects on public health through collaborative efforts between medical professionals and social scientists.”