Policy-making, and not merely socio-economic status, affecting prevalence of...

[walrus carpenter]

...infectious diseases? What would be some strong arguments I could use if I were to support this statement in an argumentative research paper? I'll need to back it up with facts (which is actually the part I'm having trouble with, 'cause I can't help but look at the topic and think "Essay!" instead of "Research paper!").
*affects (instead of affecting)
I was actually thinking both economic and socio-economic, both the income of the person and the living conditions in his area. But because, usually (but not always), the former determines the latter, and the latter usually (but not always) determines the prevalence of infectious disease, I was thinking of using the latter interpretation.
Actually, I think I'll use both. If socio-economic status were to be determined by financial capability to see a doctor and buy medication, and state of sanitation, then it is common to think that as it goes up, the prevalence of infectious diseases goes down. But that may not always be the case, especially with the former, because a country may be financially able to lower the prevalence of infectious diseases, but its government must implement effective laws of programs to make this happen.

[Cristal]

okay,

People who are of a lower socio-economic class usually:
-live in closer proximity to each other, so it makes infections spread quickly
-can't afford to go to a Doctor, so it doesn't get treated as well.
-still have to go to work even when sick, so they spread it to others that way


policy: (each refers to one of the things under socio,:
-the grants and other policies that help with schooling and job placement so people can afford to buy their own houses in better districts.
-the healthcare policy issues in Washington are a big deal in this area, since if it passes, everyone could go to the Doctor.
-Policy requiring people get paid sick leave