Institutional Trust, Health-System Resilience, and Equitable Access to Medicines: From Public Institutions to Pharmaceutical Companies

Health outcomes are commonly explained through socioeconomic conditions such as income, education, employment, housing, environmental quality, and access to healthcare. These factors form the core of what is generally described as the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH). Yet an additional dimension deserves greater attention: the quality of the institutions through which health policies, resources, and services are governed.

Citizens do not experience a health system only through physicians, hospitals, or medicines. They also encounter regulatory agencies, insurance organizations, pharmaceutical companies, reimbursement systems, public-health authorities, and administrative procedures. The reliability and predictability of these institutions can shape whether people obtain services, accept public-health recommendations, adhere to treatment, and perceive the distribution of health resources as fair.

This raises an important question: Should institutional trust be considered an institutional determinant of health within the broader SDOH framework?

The proposition does not imply replacing established social determinants such as income or education. Rather, institutional trust can be understood as a factor that influences how effectively health policies and resources are translated into actual health opportunities. The World Health Organization emphasizes that health inequalities are shaped by broader social, economic, and political structures, including the ways power and resources are distributed. Institutional arrangements are therefore not external to the production of health; they are part of the environment within which health opportunities are created and distributed.

Trust becomes particularly important because healthcare frequently requires individuals to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. Patients are expected to trust that medicines are safe, regulatory decisions are evidence-based, reimbursement rules are reasonably fair, health information is credible, and healthcare organizations will fulfill their commitments. When these expectations are repeatedly violated, distrust can become more than dissatisfaction with an organization. It can influence health-related behavior.

Empirical research has demonstrated associations between trust in healthcare institutions, access to healthcare, and perceived health. A population-based Swedish study involving more than 27,000 respondents, for example, examined trust in the healthcare system as an institutional dimension of social capital and found meaningful relationships among healthcare access, institutional trust, and self-rated health. Such findings suggest that institutional trust should not be regarded exclusively as a political or organizational variable. PubMed record of the Swedish study

The significance of trust becomes even more apparent during crises. Health-system resilience is often discussed in terms of hospital capacity, workforce availability, financing, medical supplies, information systems, and emergency preparedness. These resources are undoubtedly essential. However, a technically capable health system may still struggle during a crisis when citizens do not trust its institutions.

Public-health emergencies require social cooperation. Governments may ask citizens to accept vaccination, follow rapidly changing clinical recommendations, alter everyday behavior, tolerate temporary restrictions, or accept prioritization when resources are scarce. The effectiveness of these interventions depends partly on whether the institutions issuing those recommendations are considered credible and trustworthy.

Institutional trust can therefore be interpreted as a form of intangible resilience capacity. Hospitals can maintain reserve beds, governments can establish strategic medicine stockpiles, and health systems can develop emergency financing mechanisms. In a similar way, institutions accumulate or deplete a reserve of public trust over time.

Unlike physical reserves, however, trust cannot easily be purchased when a crisis begins. It is accumulated through previous institutional performance: transparent decisions, consistent rules, credible communication, fulfillment of commitments, fair procedures, and demonstrated competence. When institutions have developed this reservoir before a crisis, governments and health organizations may possess greater capacity to mobilize collective action when extraordinary circumstances arise.

The reverse is equally important. Institutional trust can be depleted. Repeated policy reversals without adequate explanation, inconsistent enforcement, opaque allocation of scarce resources, unresolved conflicts of interest, or failure to fulfill commitments can gradually weaken confidence in institutions. Once this occurs, technically sound policies may face resistance because citizens evaluate not only the content of a decision but also the institution making it.

This distinction also requires separating institutional trust from institutional trustworthiness.

Trust is primarily relational: it reflects the expectations and perceptions that citizens, employees, patients, companies, or other stakeholders hold toward an institution. Trustworthiness, by contrast, concerns characteristics of the institution itself. Does the organization fulfill commitments? Are its decisions sufficiently predictable? Does it provide accurate information? Does it apply comparable rules consistently? Can stakeholders reasonably rely on its behavior?

An institution may temporarily enjoy high levels of trust without possessing strong underlying trustworthiness. Conversely, an organization may improve its governance substantially while public perceptions take longer to recover. Sustainable institutional trust therefore requires more than communication campaigns. It requires organizations that provide credible reasons for being trusted.

This distinction becomes particularly relevant in pharmaceutical systems.

Medicines occupy a unique position at the intersection of government, industry, healthcare professionals, insurers, and citizens. Patients must rely on regulators to ensure quality and safety. Regulators depend on manufacturers to provide reliable information. Pharmaceutical companies depend on governments for predictable pricing and regulatory decisions. Manufacturers and pharmacies depend on insurers and purchasers for timely payments. Ultimately, patients depend on the functioning of the entire chain.

A pharmaceutical system is therefore not simply a market. It is a network of institutional relationships built partly on mutual reliance.

When these relationships function poorly, the consequences may move far beyond organizational inefficiency. Delayed regulatory decisions can disrupt production planning. Unpredictable pricing decisions can affect investment and supply decisions. Delayed reimbursement can create financial pressure elsewhere in the pharmaceutical chain. Weak coordination between regulatory, insurance, procurement, and industrial-policy institutions can eventually appear to citizens as medicine shortages or unequal access.

This creates a pathway through which institutional weaknesses can become health inequalities.

Consider a situation in which regulatory instability contributes to the temporary shortage of an important medicine. The immediate institutional failure affects all patients who require the medicine, but its health consequences may not be distributed equally. Wealthier patients may have greater capacity to locate the medicine elsewhere, pay for an alternative treatment, use private healthcare networks, or absorb additional costs. Lower-income patients may have considerably fewer alternatives.

The same institutional failure can therefore produce different health consequences according to socioeconomic position.

This observation is important for the SDOH debate. Institutional quality does not operate separately from conventional social determinants. Instead, it may amplify or mitigate their effects. Poor institutional performance can disproportionately harm populations with fewer financial, informational, geographic, or social resources.

The relationship between pharmaceutical governance and health equity is therefore more direct than it initially appears. Pricing policy, reimbursement rules, procurement practices, regulatory timelines, medicine allocation, and supply-chain governance are administrative decisions, but their consequences ultimately affect who receives treatment, when treatment begins, and how much patients must pay.

Pharmaceutical companies themselves also form part of this institutional environment. Although they are commercial organizations rather than public authorities, their decisions can influence public-health resilience. Continuity of supply, quality assurance, investment in production capacity, management of shortages, disclosure practices, and relationships with regulators and healthcare organizations all affect the reliability of pharmaceutical systems.

This suggests that the performance of pharmaceutical companies should not be assessed exclusively through conventional financial indicators such as profitability, revenue growth, or market share. From a health-system perspective, characteristics such as reliability, continuity of supply, adaptive capacity, transparency, crisis preparedness, and stakeholder trust also matter.

The concept of institutional health may be useful here. Institutional health can be understood as the capacity of an organization to maintain coherent functioning, adapt to environmental change, sustain trustworthy relationships, learn from disruption, and restore effective performance following shocks. Applied to pharmaceutical companies and public health institutions, this perspective shifts attention from short-term organizational outputs toward the long-term reliability of institutions within the health system.

Recent research on Iranian pharmaceutical companies offers an illustrative example. In that study, institutional trustworthiness was conceptually separated from institutional trust. Trustworthiness concerned the organization's consistency, fulfillment of commitments, and predictability, whereas institutional trust reflected stakeholders' perceptions of the organization. Among the dimensions examined, trustworthiness and regenerative capacity were among the weaker areas. The findings should not be generalized beyond the study sample, but they illustrate why the internal condition of pharmaceutical organizations may matter for the wider health system.

This perspective also broadens the concept of health-system resilience. Resilience should not be confined to hospitals or emergency-response agencies. A health system may possess adequate clinical infrastructure but remain vulnerable if pharmaceutical manufacturers cannot maintain production during currency shocks, insurers cannot sustain payments, regulators cannot adapt rules quickly enough, or public institutions cannot coordinate effectively.

Health-system resilience is therefore partly institutional and interorganizational.

A simplified pathway can be proposed:

Institutional Governance → Institutional Trustworthiness → Institutional Trust → Cooperation and Predictability → Health-System Resilience → Equitable Access → Health Outcomes

This pathway should not be interpreted as a rigid causal model. Some institutional failures influence health directly. A medicine shortage, for example, can restrict treatment regardless of whether trust changes. Nevertheless, repeated institutional failures may simultaneously damage access and reduce trust, creating feedback effects that make future crises more difficult to manage.

Trust can consequently function as both an outcome of institutional performance and an input into future system resilience.

This feedback mechanism is particularly important. When institutions respond effectively to a crisis, communicate uncertainty transparently, distribute scarce resources fairly, and correct mistakes, they may strengthen trust. That accumulated trust can then facilitate cooperation during the next crisis. Poor performance can generate the opposite cycle: institutional failure reduces trust, lower trust complicates subsequent policy implementation, and implementation difficulties further weaken confidence in institutions.

The policy implication is that trust should be treated as something that health systems can monitor and protect.

Traditional health-system dashboards typically measure indicators such as hospital occupancy, workforce capacity, expenditure, insurance coverage, waiting times, medicine shortages, and mortality. These measures remain essential. But institutional indicators could complement them: predictability of regulatory decisions, fulfillment of institutional commitments, transparency of resource allocation, stakeholder confidence, interorganizational coordination, continuity of pharmaceutical supply, and the capacity to correct failures.

Such indicators could serve as early-warning signals. Institutional deterioration may become visible before conventional health outcomes worsen. Declining trust among healthcare professionals, repeated regulatory inconsistency, deteriorating payment discipline, or growing coordination failures may signal vulnerabilities that later emerge as shortages, reduced access, workforce exhaustion, or public resistance.

The same logic applies to health equity assessments. Policymakers should not only ask whether a service or medicine is formally available. They should examine whether institutional arrangements make that resource equally accessible to different populations. A policy that technically applies to everyone can still generate unequal health consequences when some groups possess greater capacity to navigate institutional failures.

Transparency is especially important in this context, but transparency should not be reduced to simply publishing more information. Meaningful transparency requires institutions to explain how decisions are made, which criteria are applied, why exceptions occur, and what mechanisms exist for review or appeal. Even when citizens or organizations disagree with an outcome, procedural clarity can contribute to institutional trustworthiness.

Predictability is similarly important. In pharmaceutical policy, frequent and poorly explained changes in pricing, reimbursement, procurement, or regulatory requirements can weaken the ability of manufacturers, insurers, distributors, and healthcare organizations to plan. Regulatory predictability should therefore not be understood merely as a business-friendly policy. In sectors where organizational planning determines the availability of essential goods, predictability can indirectly become a public-health capability.

This does not mean that health regulations should remain unchanged. Resilient systems must be capable of adaptation. The objective is therefore not regulatory rigidity but predictable adaptability: institutions should be capable of changing rules when circumstances require it while maintaining transparent criteria, credible communication, and reasonable transition mechanisms.

The broader lesson is that the social production of health depends not only on resources but also on the institutions governing those resources. Two health systems with comparable levels of expenditure, infrastructure, or pharmaceutical capacity may generate different outcomes when their levels of institutional coordination, trustworthiness, and public trust differ substantially.

For this reason, institutional trust deserves greater attention within discussions of the social determinants of health. It may be most precise to describe it not as a replacement for established SDOH categories but as an institutional determinant operating within the wider social determinants framework. Its importance lies in connecting governance with individual behavior, system resilience, access to healthcare, and health equity.

For pharmaceutical systems, the implications are particularly significant. Medicine access is produced by a chain of institutions rather than by manufacturers alone. Regulators, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, procurement organizations, distributors, pharmacies, healthcare professionals, and patients form an interdependent ecosystem. The resilience of this ecosystem depends partly on whether its actors can rely on one another.

The central proposition can therefore be stated simply: institutional trust is an invisible asset of resilient health systems. It is created through trustworthy governance, accumulated during periods of normality, tested during crises, and reflected in the ability of institutions and citizens to cooperate under uncertainty.

Health-system resilience consequently requires more than hospitals, medicines, financing, and emergency plans. It requires institutions capable of earning and maintaining trust. When those institutions are coherent, transparent, predictable, adaptive, and accountable, they do more than improve governance. They help create the institutional conditions through which equitable health becomes more achievable.

References

World Health Organization. (2025). Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization. WHO: Social Determinants of Health

World Health Organization. Social Determinants of Health: Overview. World Health Organization. WHO SDOH overview

Mohseni, M., & Lindström, M. (2007). Social capital, trust in the health-care system and self-rated health: The role of access to health care in a population-based study. Social Science & Medicine, 64(7), 1373–1383. PubMed record

Rajan, D., Ventura, I., Amrhein, C., & Eichwalder, S. (2023). Strengthening Primary Health Care as a Foundation for Resilient Health Systems. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. European Observatory publication

Thompson, A. (2025). Trust, transparency, and accountability in health and pharmaceutical systems. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, 16(1), rmaf003. Oxford Academic article

Kato, A., & Naiki, Y. (2021). The Access to Medicine Index: How ranking pharmaceutical companies encourages polycentric health governance. Health Policy, 125(11), 1399–1405. PubMed record

Mahdavian Sadr, M., & Hassani, E. (1405). سنجش سلامت نهادی در شرکت های دارویی ایران: مطالعه ای توصیفی–مقطعی. پژوهشنامه علم مدیریت در صنعت، 5(1)، 37–47.