Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) are policy tools used to include health considerations in decision-making processes across sectors such as transportation, education, and criminal justice that can play a role in improving health and equity. This article summarizes proceedings from an international convening of HIA and HiAP experts held in July 2019 in Barcelona, Spain. The presentations and panel discussions included different models, best practices, and lessons learned, including from government, international banks, think tanks, and academia. Participants discussed ideas from around the world for cross-sector collaboration to advance health. The convening covered the following topics: community engagement, building greater understanding of and support for HiAP, and exploring how mandates for HIA and HiAP approaches may advance health and equity.

Review of Health Impact Assessments Informing Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition Policies, Programs, and Projects in the United States

As part of efforts to expand Health in All Policies (HiAP) in Washington State in the U.S., the Washington State Board of Health (BOH) received statutory authority in 2006 to conduct Health Impact Reviews (HIRs). HIRs analyze the potential impacts of proposed legislation and budget decisions on health and health disparities. Public health professionals who are aware of HIRs are interested in adopting a similar process in their states; however, there is limited information about HIRs, how they are perceived, and how they could advance HiAP. This research involved a descriptive analysis of a sample of HIRs and semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 17 key informants. For the descriptive analysis, all HIRs requested or completed between January 1, 2007 and April 1, 2016 that had a request form submitted by a legislator or the governor that was available in the BOH’s online database were reviewed. Information was collected on several variables including the bill number and title, sponsor and political affiliation, and the sector to which the bill or budgetary proposal pertained. A purposeful sample of legislators, staff, advocates, and lobbyists who were involved with HIRs during the study period were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Topic coding was used to identify key themes from the qualitative data. During the study period, 20 legislators requested 36 HIRs; 32 HIRs were completed. HIRs were requested for several bill topics, including education (11/36) and labor and employment (9/36). Legislators who requested HIRs felt they provided valuable data on health and health disparities for proposed bills. Individuals who were less supportive of HIRs perceived them as an advocacy or political tool. The main barrier to widespread use of HIRs in Washington was a lack of awareness among legislators. HIRs are one strategy to advance HiAP for state policy decisions. HIRs are a potentially effective tool for highlighting how legislative proposals and budgets positively and negatively impact health and health disparities. Future efforts should promote awareness and highlight shared benefits of HIRs among legislators and their staff, as well as their scientific integrity, methodological rigor, and objectivity.

Context: In 2018, the Health Impact Project (the Project) developed and tested a new health in all policies (HiAP) tool called “legislative health notes” to provide state and local legislators with peer-reviewed evidence, public health data, and local data that illustrate potential positive and negative health and equity effects of proposed bills. Objectives: The Project sought to refine the health note methodology while piloting the tool in the Colorado and Indiana General Assemblies, and with the Council of the District of Columbia, and worked with affiliates to introduce them in North Carolina, Ohio, and California. Design and Participants: External partners solicited feedback on health notes via semistructured interviews and surveys from legislators, legislative staff, and expert reviewers who were familiar with health notes in each of these jurisdictions. Results: Respondents shared that health notes were nonpartisan, were easy for nonexperts to understand, and would be more effective if delivered earlier in the legislative process. Conclusion: In response to informant feedback, practitioners can explore adding high-level summaries, increasing focus on health equity implications and the potential to work with legislators during the policy formulation phase. Data from this pilot suggest that legislative health notes are a promising nonpartisan and standardized tool to better understand the health and equity implications of proposed legislation.