Resumo Analisamos os esforços da Organização Internacional do Trabalho (OIT) em ampliar o cuidado médico sob seguridade social, via convenções, amparo e assistência técnica internacionais. Consideramos os desafios da OIT no desenvolvimento da cobertura global de saúde por meio do modelo trabalhista e de seguridade social. A narrativa inicia no período entreguerras, com as primeiras convenções sobre seguro saúde, depois discute a visão universalista baseada em direitos da Declaração da Filadélfia (1944). Classificamos a pesquisa e a assistência da OIT no pós-guerra como “gradualismo progressivo” e mostramos como, a partir do final da década de 1970, a OIT foi marginalizada, embora mantivesse um papel de conselheira dentro do atual modelo “pluralista cooperativo” dominante.

Abstract We examine the efforts of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to extend medical care under social security, through international conventions, advocacy and technical assistance. We consider the challenges faced by the ILO in advancing global health coverage through its labourist, social security model. The narrative begins in the interwar period, with the early conventions on sickness insurance, then discusses the rights-based universalistic vision expressed in the Philadelphia Declaration (1944). We characterize the ILO’s postwar research and technical assistance as “progressive gradualism” then show how from the late-1970s the ILO became increasingly marginalized, though it retained an advisory role within the now dominant “co-operative pluralistic” model.

British historians initially saw the interwar period as a "golden age" for public health in local government, with unprecedented preventive and curative powers wielded by Medical Officers of Health (MOsH). In the 1980s Lewis and Webster challenged this reading, arguing that MOsH were overstretched, neglectful of their "watchdog" role and incapable of formulating a new philosophy of preventive medicine. The article first details this critique, then reappraises it in the light of recent demographic work. It then provides a case study of public health administration in South-West England. Its conclusion is that some elements of the Lewis/Webster case now deserve to be revised.