Let’s talk about health inequities. This is the topic of the 5th (of 7) paper in the New England Journal’s health policy fundamentals series. This one is written by Michele K. Evans, M.D.
My research emphasis is on systemwide financial incentives to improve value, which means I do not talk on here very much about the nitty gritty of health disparities. I do, however, regularly comment on the big-picture aspects of health disparities, usually by saying that it’s important for society to determine how much care citizens should be guaranteed and then to go about getting that to them in ways that don’t undermine the financial incentives in the system.
Having a clear idea of what we mean when we throw terms like “health inequities” and “health disparities” is a good place to start, and I love the definition that Dr. Evans provides:
Health inequities are “inequalities that are deemed to be unfair, unjust, avoidable, or unnecessary, that can be reduced or remedied through policy action.”
So not every inequality is bad. And of the ones that are, not all of them can be reduced or remedied through policy action. There are facts of genetics and demographics and even socioeconomics that lead to appropriate inequalities or that lead to inappropriate inequalities that there is no way to fix through policy. So, the ones that are bad and are amenable to policy solutions are what we are calling “inequities,” and they are what we are interested in. (By the way, in case you hadn’t noticed, this topic falls squarely into the wealth redistribution spectrum.)
After the definition, she goes on to write about several aspects and causes of inequity, notable inclusions being the unresolved carryforward effects of our nation’s history of racism and slavery, intergenerational poverty, White supremacy, and our unwillingness “to respect Indigenous Americans’ rightful claim to their native lands.”
What currently has the most profound effect on health inequities? Probably access to stable health insurance coverage. The unfortunate fact that our American healthcare system uses employers to provide health insurance makes this worse because minorities have higher unemployment and underemployment.
Dr. Evans also goes over some data on the underrepresentation of minorities in health professions, and then she makes this somewhat perplexing (to me at least) statement:
“Underrepresentation [of minorities in medicine] further intensifies health disparities by limiting the pool of culturally competent clinicians who can offer appropriate leadership in both academia and patient care.”
I guess by “culturally competent,” she is meaning someone who is a member of or who at least has a deep understanding of minority cultures.
She then gets more political, and this is interesting to me, so please allow a brief detour . . .
I have noticed that in perspective articles like this in NEJM and other medical journals, outright “liberal” statements are given boldly and unapologetically; on the other hand, outright “conservative” statements are eschewed in favor of couching in general values and academic speak. I think this is a reflection of academic medicine’s general political persuasion, which extends to judging which positions are socially acceptable and unacceptable. It makes me sad that both sides are apparently not equally able to give their opinions directly and powerfully because they both have essential contributions and ideas and conceptions of values that must be understood if we want to make a truly thoughtful decision about how to address health inequities. And, if this commentary is making you wonder about my personal political biases, I’ve disclosed them before here.
Anyway, Dr. Evans gets more political: She refers to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and says they incorporate the ideals of a social contract, which she defines by saying “the state exists to serve the people’s will.” But then she writes, “Fracturing of this social contract has reinforced inequality, inequity, and poor access.” Is our social contract fractured? Is having health inequities somehow the same as our government not reflecting the people’s will? She seems to think so. Regardless, we do need some serious changes to our political system, and this book should be required reading for any political reformer.
Finally, Dr. Evans gives some recommendations: Provide adequate income and educational supports to lift all children from poverty, stage a frontal attack on racial and gender pay gaps and on occupational segregation, and recognize health care as a human right.
There you go. This was a great primer on what you can expect to hear from most researchers and health policy folk on the topic of health inequities!