Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

Healthcare and the LGBT community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Various topics in medicine relate to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. According to the US Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), besides HIV/AIDS, issues related to LGBT health include breast and cervical cancer, hepatitis, mental health, substance use disorders, alcohol use, tobacco use, depression, access to care for transgender persons, issues surrounding marriage and family recognition, conversion therapy, refusal clause legislation, and laws that are intended to "immunize health care professionals from liability for discriminating against persons of whom they disapprove."

LGBT people may face barriers to accessing healthcare on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression. Many avoid or delay care or receive inappropriate or inferior care because of perceived or real homophobia or transphobia and discrimination by healthcare providers and institutions; in other words, negative personal experience, the assumption or expectation of negative experience based on knowledge of the history of such experience in other LGBT people, or both.

Issues affecting LGBT people generally

Research from the United Kingdom indicates that there appears to be limited evidence available from which to draw general conclusions about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health because epidemiological studies have not incorporated sexuality as a factor in data collection. Review of research that has been undertaken suggests that there are no differences in terms of major health problems between LGBT people and the general population, although LGBT people generally appear to experience poorer health, with no information on common and major diseases, cancers, or long-term health. Mental health appears worse among LGBT people than among the general population, with depression, anxiety, and suicide ideation being 2–3 times higher than the general population. For transgender and gender non-conforming people, these issues are more apparent before transitioning, or in the early stages of transition. There appear to be higher rates of eating disorder and self-harm, but similar levels of obesity and domestic violence to the general population; lack of exercise and smoking appear more significant and drug use higher, while alcohol consumption is similar to the general population. Polycystic ovaries and infertility were identified as being more common amongst lesbians than heterosexual women. The research indicates noticeable barriers between LGB patients and health professionals, and the reasons suggested are homophobia, assumptions of heterosexuality, lack of knowledge, misunderstanding and over-caution; institutional barriers were identified as well, due to assumed heterosexuality, inappropriate referrals, lack of patient confidentiality, discontinuity of care, absence of LGBT-specific healthcare, lack of relevant psycho-sexual training. About 30 percent of all completed suicides have been related to sexual identity crisis. Students who also fall into the gay, bisexual, lesbian or trans gendered identity groups report being five times as more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe after being bullied due to their sexual orientation.

Research points to issues encountered from an early age, such as LGBT people being targeted for bullying, assault, and discrimination, as contributing significantly to depression, suicide and other mental health issues in adulthood. Social research suggests that LGBT experience discriminatory practices in accessing healthcare.

One way that LGB individuals have attempted to deal with discriminatory health care is by seeking "queer-friendly" health care providers.

It is often pointed out that the reason for this is heterosexism in medical care and research.

"Heterosexism can be purposeful (decreased funding or support of research projects that focus on sexual orientation) or unconscious (demographic questions on intake forms that ask the respondent to rate herself or himself as married, divorced, or single). These forms of discrimination limit medical research and negatively impact the health care of LGB individuals. This disparity is particularly extreme for lesbians (compared to homosexual men) because they have a double minority status, and experience oppression for being both female and homosexual."

Especially with lesbian patients, they may be discriminated against in three ways:

  1. Homophobic attitudes;
  2. Heterosexist judgements and behavior;
  3. General sexism: focusing primarily on male health concerns and services; assigning subordinate to that of men health roles for women, as for service providers and service recipients.

Causes of LGBT health disparities

LGBT patients in the United States are often one of the most underserved and poorly-served in hospital or medical settings. Because of their increased mental health issues, they are more in need of medical professional help. During the past decade, the LGBT social movement in United States and worldwide contributed to the increasing trend of public recognition and acceptance toward the community. Reports from the Institute of Medicine, US National Institutes of Health and other nonprofit organizations have called to address the gap in LGBT training and education for healthcare professionals. Current research indicate that LGBT individuals face disparity compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts regarding access to health facilities, qualities, and treatment outcomes. Some causes of lack of access to healthcare among LGBT people are: perceived or real discrimination, inequality in the workplace and health insurance sectors, and lack of competent care due to negligible LGBT health training in medical schools . In an online survey, 65% of health physicians heard negative comments from peers targeting LGBT patients, while 35% witnessed discrimination toward individuals in workplace. Another survey shows that more than 90% of U.S. medical schools reported some hours of LGBT-specific content training in the curriculum during the pre-clinical years, while only two-thirds of schools reported in clinical years. Medical students are less likely to discriminate against LGBT patients if they can practice taking medical history from LGBT patients. Healthcare professionals working with little to no knowledge about the LGBT community can result in a lack of or a decline in the type of healthcare these families receive: "Fundamentally, the distinctive healthcare needs of lesbian women go unnoticed, are deemed unimportant or are simply ignored." Views like these lead to the belief that health care training can exclude the topic related to the healthcare of LGBT and make certain members of the LGBT community feel as though they can be exempt from healthcare without any bodily consequences.

An upstream issue is the relative lack of official data on gender identity that health policy makers could use to plan, cost, implement and evaluate health policies and programs to improve transgender population health. The 'What We Know Project' reviewed thousands of peer-reviewed studies and found a strong link between discrimination and harm to the health of LGBT people. The findings showed that the presence of discrimination, stigma, and prejudice creates a hostile social climate which increase the risk of poor mental and physical health, even for those not directly exposed to the discrimination. This creates a situation known as 'minority stress' which includes low self-esteem and expectations, fear of discrimination and internalized stigma - which all contribute to health disparities.

LGBT health and social support networks

LGBT health outcomes are strongly influenced by social support networks, peers, and family. One example of a support network now available to some LGBT youth include Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), which are clubs that work to improve the climate for LGBT youth at schools and educate students and staff about issues faced by the LGBT community. In order to investigate the effects of GSAs on LGBT youth, 149 college-aged students that self-identified as LGBT completed a survey that assessed their high school's climate for LGBT youth, and their current health and alcohol dependency outcomes. Those participants who had a GSA at their high school (GSA+ youth) reported higher senses of belonging, less at-school victimization because of their sexual orientation, more favorable outcomes related to their alcohol use behaviors, and greater positive outcomes related to depression and general psychological distress when compared to those without a GSA (GSA- youth). Amongst other competing variables that contributed to these outcomes, the vast majority of schools that had a GSA were located in urban and suburban areas that tend to be safer and more accepting of LGBT people in general.

Family and social support networks also relate with mental health trajectories amongst LGBT youth. Family rejection upon a youth "coming out" sometimes results in adverse health outcomes. In fact, LGBT youth who experienced family rejection were 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide, 5.9 times more likely to experience elevated levels of depression, and 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs than those LGBT youth who were accepted by family members. Family rejection sometimes leads youth to either run away from home or be kicked out of their home, which relates to the high rate of homelessness experienced by LGBT youth. In turn, homelessness relates to an array of adverse health outcomes that sometimes stem from homeless LGBT youths' elevated rates of involvement in prostitution and survival sex.

One longitudinal study of 248 youth across 5.5 years found that LGBT youth that have strong family and peer support experience less distress across all-time points relative to those who have uniformly low family and peer support. Overtime, the psychological distress experienced by LGBT youth decreased, regardless of the amount of family and peer support that they received during adolescence. Nonetheless, the decrease in distress was greater for youth with low peer and family support than for those participants with high support. At age 17, those who lacked family support but had high peer support exhibited the highest levels of distress, but this distress level lowered to nearly the same level as those reporting high levels of support within a few years. Those LGBT youth without family support but with strong support from their peers reported an increase in family support over the years in spite of having reported the lowest family support at the age of 17.

Similarly, another study of 232 LGBT youth between the ages of 16-20 found that those with low family and social support reported higher rates of hopelessness, loneliness, depression, anxiety, somatization, suicidality, global severity, and symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than those who received strong family and non-family support. In contrast, those who solely received non-family support reported worse outcomes for all measured health outcomes except for anxiety and hopelessness, for which there was no difference.

Some studies have found poorer mental health outcomes for bisexual people than gay men and lesbians, which has been attributed to some degree to this community's lack of acceptance and validation both within and outside of the LGBT community. One qualitative study interviewed 55 bisexual people in order to identify common reasons for higher rates of mental health problems. The testimonials that were collected and organized into macro level (social structure), meso level (interpersonal), and micro level (individual) factors. At the social structure level, bisexuals noted that they were constantly asked to explain and justify their sexual orientation, and experienced biphobia and monosexism from individuals both within and outside of the LGBT community. Many also stated that their identity was repetitively degraded by others, and that they are assumed to be promiscuous and hypersexual. During dates with others that did not identify as bisexual, some sighted being attacked and rejected solely based their sexual orientation. One female bisexual participant stated that upon going on a date with a lesbian female, "...she was very anti-bisexual. She said, 'You're sitting on the fence. Make a choice, either you're gay or straight'" (p. 498). Family members similarly questioned and criticized their identity. One participant recalled that his sister stated that she would prefer if her sibling were gay instead of "...this slutty person who just sleeps with everyone" (p. 498). At the personal level, many bisexual struggle to accept themselves due to society's negative social attitudes and beliefs about bisexuality. In order to address issues of self acceptance, participants recommended embracing spirituality, exercise, the arts, and other activities that promote emotional health.

Assisted Reproductive Technologies

LGBTQ individuals face unique problems in having biological children not experienced by cisgender heterosexual men and women. Traditionally parenthood was often seen as impossible for same sex couples and LGBT adoption was encouraged instead, but in recent decades, developmental biologists have been researching and developing techniques to facilitate same-sex reproduction, which could allow for same sex couples to both be biological parents together.

Issues affecting lesbians

Breast cancer

According to Katherine A. O'Hanlan, lesbians "have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer [of any] subset of women in the world." Additionally, many lesbians do not get routine mammograms, do breast self-exams, or have clinical breast exams.

There are also policy documents from both the UK and US Government that stated there could be higher rates of breast cancer among lesbian and bisexual women despite insufficient evidence. In a 2009 report by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer's Inquiry into Inequalities in Cancer, it was stated that "Lesbians may have a higher risk of breast cancer.

Depression and anxiety

Depression and anxiety are thought to affect lesbians at a higher rate than in the general population, for similar reasons.

Domestic violence

Domestic violence is reported to occur in about 11 percent of lesbian homes. While this rate is about half the rate of 20 percent reported by heterosexual women, lesbians often have fewer resources available for shelter and counselling.

Obesity and fitness

Lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to be overweight or obese. Research shows that on average lesbians have a higher body mass index than heterosexual women.

Substance use disorder

Lesbians often have high rates of substance use, including recreational drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Studies have shown that lesbian and bisexual women are 200% more likely to smoke tobacco than other women.

Reproductive and sexual health

Lesbian, bisexual, and queer women have many of the same reproductive and sexual health needs as heterosexual women. However, queer women face disparities when it comes to reproductive and sexual health. This may be in part due to lower socioeconomic status and lower rates of insurance, particularly for bisexual individuals. Additionally, sex education (in the U.S.) is largely heteronormative and may not provide information relevant for LGBTQ individuals (see LGBT sex education). Health care providers may not have adequate education regarding sexual orientation, so may not be offering their queer patients appropriate and needed services. In one survey of Ob/Gyn residents, 50% reported feeling unprepared to care for lesbian or bisexual patients and 92% reported a desire for more education on how to provide healthcare to LGBTQ patients. Queer individuals may also face discrimination and bias in the health care setting (and in society more broadly), leading to lower quality health care or deterring individuals from seeking care at all. Given these factors, queer women have specific needs around reproductive and sexual health.

Cervical cancer

A lack of screening for cervical cancer is among the most obvious and most preventable risk factor for lesbians, bisexual, and queer women in the development of invasive late-stage cervical cancer. Lesbian, bisexual, and queer women are less likely to receive appropriate screening for cervical cancer than heterosexual women, which leads to later detection of cervical cancer.

Contraception

Lesbian, bisexual, and queer women need access to contraception, both to prevent pregnancy and for a variety of non-contraceptive benefits. Estimates suggest that 3.8 million cisgender lesbian, bisexual and queer women may be using contraceptives in the United States. However, lesbian, bisexual, and queer women are less likely to use contraceptive methods, even when they are engaging in sex that could result in pregnancy.

Abortion

Lesbian, bisexual, queer, and women who identify with a sexual minority identity seek abortion care. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that approximately 5% of abortion patients in the United States identify as lesbian, bisexual, or queer. Studies relying on measures of self-reported abortions suggest that abortion is common across queer women's lives. Bisexual adolescents are more likely to terminate a pregnancy than their heterosexual counterparts, a difference that persists into adulthood. Across their lifetimes, women who identify with a sexual minority identity were more likely than heterosexual women to experience an unwanted pregnancy or terminate a pregnancy.

Pregnancy healthcare for lesbian women

There have been several studies that discuss healthcare experiences of pregnant lesbian women. Larsson and Dykes conducted a study in 2009 about lesbian mothers in Sweden. The participants wanted their healthcare providers to confirm and recognize both parents, not just the biological mother. They also wanted their healthcare providers to ask questions about their "life styles" to demonstrate their openness about sexuality. Most of the women in the study commented that they had good experiences with healthcare. However, birth education tended to focus on mother and father dynamics. The forms that were also used tended to be heterosexist (see Heterosexism), only allowing for mother and father identities. To account for these differences, Singer created a document about how to improve the prenatal care of lesbian women in the United States. She found that curiosity about a patient's sexuality can take over an appointment, sometimes placing the patient into a situation where they end up educating the provider. To be inclusive, Singer recommended that healthcare providers should be more inclusive in their opening discussions by saying "So tell me the story of how you became pregnant". Healthcare providers should, according to Singer, use inclusive language that can be used for all types of patients. Healthcare providers were also not aware of how much reproductive health care cost for lesbian couples and they should openly recognize this issue with their lesbian patients. Pharris, Bucchio, Dotson, and Davidson also provided suggestions on how to support lesbian couples during pregnancy. Childbirth educators should avoid assuming that parents are heterosexual or straight couples. They recommend using neutral language when discussing parent preferences. Forms, applications, and other distributed information should be inclusive of lesbian parents. They suggest using terms such as "non-biological mother, co-parent, social mother, other mother and second female parent" are good examples. Asking parents was also a suggested way to figure out what term should be used. Parents may also need help navigating legal systems in the area.

Midwife(wives) and Doula(s) have provided care for lesbian women and couples who are pregnant. In an article in Rewire News, there was a discussion of how midwives and doulas are attempting to improve the overall care of lesbian couples by having specific training based on providing care to these couples as well as having inclusive processes. In a study of lesbian and bisexual women in Canada about using healthcare services, researchers Ross, Steele, and Epstein found that the women in the study loved working with doulas and midwives. Midwives were considered helpful advocates with other healthcare providers that they encountered. Midwives also discuss their perspectives. Röndahl, Bruhner, and Lindhe conducted a study in 2009 about lesbian pregnancy experiences of women in Norway. They found that midwives were the ones who were responsible for creating a space to discuss sexuality. However, midwives in the study felt that they were inadequate about having the communication tools to create this space. Additionally, the researchers found that lesbian couples were seen as different compared to straight couples. The partners have a sense of both love and friendship. Their differences were also seen when trying to find the roles for the lesbian co-mothers (non-biological mothers), as the language and questions asked did not fit their roles. Finally, the researchers found that there needed to be a balance of asking questions and being overly assertive. Midwives could ask questions about the patients' sexuality, but asking too many questions caused discomfort in the patients.

Issues affecting gay men

Depression, anxiety, and suicide

Gay men are more likely to internalize their mental health issues than others in the LGBT community. Studies by Cochran et al. (2003) and Mills et al. (2004), among others, suggest that depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population.

According to GLMA, "the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns. Culturally sensitive mental health services targeted specifically at gay men may be more effective in the prevention, early detection, and treatment of these conditions." Researchers at the University of California at San Francisco found that major risk factors for depression in gay and bisexual men included a recent experience of anti-gay violence or threats, not identifying as gay, or feeling alienated from the gay community.

Results from a survey by Stonewall Scotland published in early 2012 found that 3% of gay men had attempted suicide within the past year. Despite progress in LGBT rights globally, gay men continue to experience high rates of loneliness and depression after coming out. Suicide rates among men in same-sex relationships fell significantly in Sweden and Denmark after the legalization of same-sex marriage. Researcher Annette Erlangsen suggested that along with other gay rights legislation, same-sex marriage may have reduced feelings of social stigmatization among some homosexual people and that "being married is protective against suicide".

HIV/AIDS

Men who have sex with men are more likely to acquire HIV in the modern West, Japan, India, and Taiwan, as well as other developed countries than among the general population, in the United States, 60 times more likely than the general population. An estimated 62% of adult and adolescent American males living with HIV/AIDS got it through sexual contact with other men. HIV-related stigma is consistently and significantly associated with poorer physical and mental health in PLHIV (people living with HIV). The first name proposed for what is now known as AIDS was gay-related immune deficiency, or GRID. This name was proposed in 1982, after public health scientists noticed clusters of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among gay males in California and New York City. There is an unspoken fear of getting HIV tested in gay men. This can be because of fear of sexual rejection, not knowing where of how to get tested, and fear of friends/family distancing.

Other sexually transmitted infections

The US Center for Disease Control recommends annual screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV and chlamydia for men who have sex with men.

Black gay men have a greater risk of HIV and other STIs than white gay men. However, their reported rates of unprotected anal intercourse are similar to those of men who have sex with men (MSM) of other ethnicities.

Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk for hepatitis, and immunization for Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B is recommended for all men who have sex with men. Safer sex is currently the only means of prevention for the Hepatitis C.

Human papilloma virus, which causes anal and genital warts, plays a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men, and some health professionals now recommend routine screening with anal pap smears to detect early cancers. Men have higher prevalence of oral HPV than women. Oral HPV infection is associated with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer.

Eating disorders and body image

Gay men are more likely than straight men to develop eating disorders such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa. The cause of this correlation remains poorly understood, but is hypothesized to be related to the ideals of body image prevalent in the LGBT community. Obesity, on the other hand, affects relatively fewer gay and bisexual men than straight men.

Substance use

David McDowell of Columbia University, who has studied substance use in gay men, wrote that club drugs are particularly popular at gay bars and circuit parties. Studies have found different results on the frequency of tobacco use among gay and bisexual men compared to that of heterosexual men, with one study finding a 50% higher rate among sexual minority men, and another encountering no differences across sexual orientations.

Issues affecting bisexual people

Typically, bisexual individuals and their health and well-being are not studied independently of lesbian and gay individuals. Thus, there is limited research on the health issues that affect bisexual individuals. However, the research that has been done has found striking disparities between bisexuals and heterosexuals, and even between bisexuals and homosexuals.

It is important to consider that the majority of bisexual individuals are well-adjusted and healthy, despite having higher instances of health issues than the heterosexual population.

Body image and eating disorders

Youth who reported having sex with both males and females are at the greatest risk for disordered eating, unhealthy weight control practices compared to youth who only have same- or other-gender sex. Bisexual women are twice as likely as lesbians to have an eating disorder and, if they are out, to be twice as likely as heterosexual women to have an eating disorder.

Mental health and suicide

Bisexual females are higher on suicidal intent, mental health difficulties and mental health treatment than bisexual males. In a survey by Stonewall Scotland, 7% of bisexual men had attempted suicide in the past year. Bisexual women are twice as likely as heterosexual women to report suicidal ideation if they have disclosed their sexual orientation to a majority of individuals in their lives; those who are not disclosed are three times more likely. Bisexual individuals have a higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempts than heterosexual individuals, and more self-injurious behavior than gay men and lesbians. A 2011 survey found that 44 per cent of bisexual middle and high school students had thought about suicide in the past month.

Substance use

Female adolescents who report relationships with same- and other-sex partners have higher rates of hazardous alcohol use and substance use disorders. This includes higher rates of marijuana and other illicit drug use. Behaviorally and self-identified bisexual women are significantly more likely to smoke cigarettes and have been drug users as adolescents than heterosexual women.

Cancer

Bisexual women are more likely to be nulliparous, overweight and obese, have higher smoking rates and alcohol drinking than heterosexual women, all risk factors for breast cancer. Bisexual men practicing receptive anal intercourse are at higher risk for anal cancer caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV).

HIV/AIDS and sexual health

Most research on HIV/AIDS focuses on gay and bisexual men than lesbians and bisexual women. Evidence for risky sexual behavior in bisexually behaving men has been conflicted. Bisexually active men have been shown to be just as likely as gay or heterosexual men to use condoms. Men who have sex with men and women are less likely than homosexually behaving men to be HIV-positive or engage in unprotected receptive anal sex, but more likely than heterosexually behaving men to be HIV-positive. Although there are no confirmed cases of HIV transmitted from female to female, women who have sex with both men and women have higher rates of HIV than homosexual or heterosexual women.

In a 2011 nationwide study in the United States, 46.1% of bisexual women reported having experienced rape, compared to 13.1% of lesbians and 17.4% of heterosexual women, a risk factor for HIV.

Issues affecting transgender people

Access to health care

Transgender individuals are often reluctant to seek medical care or are denied access by providers due to transphobia or a lack of knowledge or experience with transgender health. Additionally, in some jurisdictions, health care related to transgender issues, especially sex reassignment therapy, is not covered by medical insurance.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care provide a set of non-binding clinical guidelines for health practitioners who are treating transgender patients. The Yogyakarta Principles, a global human rights proposal, affirms in Principle 17 that "States shall (g) facilitate access by those seeking body modifications related to gender reassignment to competent, non-discriminatory treatment, care and support.

In the UK, the NHS is legally required to provide treatment for gender dysphoria. As of 2018, Wales refers patients to the Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) in London, but the Welsh government plans to open a gender identity clinic in Cardiff.

In India, a 2004 report claimed that hijras 'face discrimination in various ways' in the Indian health-care system, and sexual reassignment surgery is unavailable in government hospitals in India.

In Bangladesh, health facilities sensitive to hijra culture are virtually non-existent, according to a report on hijra social exclusion.

Denial of health care in the United States

The 2008-2009 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, published by National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality in partnership with the National Black Justice Coalition, shed light on the discrimination transgender and gender non-conforming people face in many aspects of daily life, including in medical and health care settings. The survey reported that 19% of respondents had been refused healthcare by a doctor or other provider because they identify as transgender or gender non-conforming and transgender people of color were more likely to have been refused healthcare. 36% of American Indian and 27% of multi-racial respondents reported being refused healthcare, compared to 17% of white respondents. In addition, the survey found that 28% of respondents said they had been verbally harassed in a healthcare setting and 2% of respondents reported being physically attacked in a doctor's office. Transgender people particularly vulnerable to being assaulted in a doctor's office were those who identify as African-Americans (6%), those who engaged in sex work, drug sales or other underground work (6%), those who transitioned before they were 18 (5%), and those who identified as undocumented or non-citizens (4%).

An updated version of the NTDS survey, called the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, was published in December 2016.

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act contains nondiscrimination provisions to protect transgender people. In December 2016, however, a federal judge issued an injunction to block the enforcement of "the portion of the Final Rule that interprets discrimination on the basis of 'gender identity' and 'termination of pregnancy'". Under the Trump administration, Roger Severino was appointed as civil rights director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Severino opposes Section 1557 and HHS has said it "will not investigate complaints about anti-transgender discrimination," as explained by the National Center for Transgender Equality. When a journalist asked Severino if, under the HHS Conscience and Religious Freedom division whose creation was announced in January 2018, transgender people could be "denied health care," he said "I think denial is a very strong word" and that healthcare "providers who simply want to serve the people they serve according to their religious beliefs" should be able to do so without fear of losing federal funding. On May 24, 2019, Severino announced a proposal to reverse this portion of Section 1557, and, as of April 23, 2020, the Justice Department was reportedly reviewing the Trump administration's "final rule" which HHS acknowledged would reverse Section 1557's gender identity protections.

On April 2, 2019, Texas Senate Bill 17 passed by a vote of 19–12. It would allow state-licensed professionals such as doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, and plumbers to deny services to anyone if the professional cites a religious objection. To reveal the motivations behind the bill, opponents proposed an amendment to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity; the amendment failed 12–19.

On October 15, 2019, federal judge Reed O'Connor vacated the part of the Affordable Care Act that protects transgender people. The ruling means that federally-funded healthcare insurers and providers may deny treatment or coverage based on sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy, and that doctors are not required to provide any services whatsoever to transgender people—even if they're the same services provided to non-transgender people, and even if they're medically necessary.

Hormone treatment for transgender youth is illegal in Tennessee. On May 18, 2021, Governor Bill Lee signed a healthcare bill specifically prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing hormone treatment for gender dysphoria in prepubertal minors, specifically allowing other hormone treatments to be prescribed for conditions such as growth deficiencies.

Transgender youth healthcare

Legislators in 25 US states have introduced bills to restrict access to gender-affirming medical care for minors in the past two years. As of August 2022, these bills have become law in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, and Tennessee. Relevant professional organizations including The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry have explicitly voiced opposition to these laws. Most of these laws include sections that would penalize any healthcare providers that would acknowledge gender affirming care for transgender youth.

Insurance coverage

Although they are not the only uninsured population in the United States, transgender people are less likely than cisgender people to have access to health insurance and if they do, their insurance plan may not cover medically necessary services. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey reported that 19% of survey respondents stated that they had no health insurance compared to 15% of the general population. They were also less likely to be insured by an employer. Undocumented non-citizens had particularly high rates of non-coverage (36%) as well as African-Americans (31%), compared to white respondents (17%).

While a majority of U.S. insurance policies expressly exclude coverage for transgender care, regulations are shifting to expand coverage of transgender and gender non-conforming health care. A number of private insurance carriers cover transgender-related health care under the rubric of "transgender services", "medical and surgical treatment of gender identity disorder", and "gender reassignment surgery". Nine states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia require that most private insurance plans cover medically necessary health care for transgender patients.

Depending on where they live, some transgender people are able to access gender-specific health care through public health insurance programs. Medicaid does not have a federal policy on transgender health care and leaves the regulation of the coverage of gender-confirming health care up to each state. While Medicaid does not fund sex reassignment surgery in forty states, several, like New York and Oregon, now require Medicaid to cover (most) transgender care.

Cancer

Cancers related to hormone use include breast cancer and liver cancer. In addition, trans men who have not had removal of the uterus, ovaries, or breasts remain at risk to develop cancer of these organs, while trans women remain at risk for prostate cancer. The likelihood of prostate cancer in transgender women taking anti-androgens is significantly lower than in cisgender men.

Mental health

According to transgender advocate Rebecca Allison, trans people are "particularly prone" to depression and anxiety: "In addition to loss of family and friends, they face job stress and the risk of unemployment. Trans people who have not transitioned and remain in their birth gender are very prone to depression and anxiety. Suicide is a risk, both prior to transition and afterward. One of the most important aspects of the transgender therapy relationship is management of depression and/or anxiety." Depression is significantly correlated with experienced discrimination. In a study of San Francisco trans women, 62% reported depression. In a 2003 study of 1093 trans men and trans women, there was a prevalence of 44.1% for clinical depression and 33.2% for anxiety.

Suicide attempts are common in transgender people. In some transgender populations the majority have attempted suicide at least once. 41% of the respondents of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey reported having attempted suicide. This statistic was even higher for certain demographics – for example, 56% of American Indian and Alaskan Native transgender respondents had attempted suicide. In contrast, 1.6% of the American population has attempted suicide. In the sample all minority ethnic groups (Asian, Latino, black, American Indian and mixed race) had higher prevalence of suicide attempts than white people. Number of suicide attempts was also correlated with life challenges - 64% of those surveyed who had been sexually assaulted had attempted suicide. 76% who had been assaulted by teachers or other school staff had made an attempt.

In 2012 the Scottish Transgender Alliance conducted the Trans Mental Health Study. 74% of the respondents who had transitioned reported improved mental health after transitioning. 53% had self-harmed at some point, and 11% currently self-harmed. 55% had been diagnosed with or had a current diagnosis of depression. An additional 33% believed that they currently had depression, or had done in the past, but had not been diagnosed. 5% had a current or past eating disorder diagnosis. 19% believed that they had had an eating disorder or currently had one, but had not been diagnosed. 84% of the sample had experienced suicide ideation and 48% had made a suicide attempt. 3% had attempted suicide more than 10 times. 63% of respondents who transitioned thought about and attempted suicide less after transitioning. Other studies have found similar results.

Trans women appear to be at greater risk than trans men and the general population of dying of suicide. However, trans men are more likely to attempt suicide than trans women.

Personality disorders are common in transgender people.

Gender identity disorder is currently classed as a psychiatric condition by the DSM IV-TR. The upcoming DSM-5 removes GID and replaces it with 'gender dysphoria', which is not classified by some authorities as a mental illness. Until the 1970s, psychotherapy was the primary treatment for GID. However, today the treatment protocol involves biomedical interventions, with psychotherapy on its own being unusual.

There has been controversy about the inclusion of transsexuality in the DSM, one claim being that Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood was introduced to the DSM-III in 1980 as a 'backdoor-maneuver' to replace homosexuality, which was removed from the DSM-II in 1973.

Hormones

Transgender individuals frequently take hormones to achieve feminizing or masculinizing effects. Side effects of hormone use include increased risk of blood clotting, high or low blood pressure, elevated blood sugar, water retention, dehydration, electrolyte disturbances, liver damage, increased risk for heart attack and stroke. Use of unprescribed hormones is common, but little is known about the associated risks. One potential hazard is HIV transmission from needle sharing. Transgender men seeking to get pregnant were once told that they needed to stop hormone therapy or testosterone treatment as it could be difficult to become pregnant or could cause potential birth defects, however it now seems that this may not be necessary. More research needs to be conducted in this field in order to make a definitive conclusion.

Injectable silicone

Some trans women use injectable silicone, sometimes administered by lay persons, to achieve their desired physique. This is most frequently injected into the hip and buttocks. It is associated with considerable medical complications, including morbidity. Such silicone may migrate, causing disfigurement years later. Non-medical grade silicone may contain contaminants, and may be injected using a shared needle. In New York City silicone injection occurs frequently enough to be called 'epidemic', with a NYC survey of trans women finding that 18% were receiving silicone injections from 'black market' providers.

Sexually transmitted infections

Trans people (especially trans women – trans men have actually been found to have a lower rate of HIV than the general US population) are frequently forced into sex work to make a living, and are subsequently at increased risk for STIs including HIV. According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 2.64% of American transgender people are HIV positive, and transgender sex workers are over 37 times more likely than members of the general American population to be HIV positive. HIV is also more common in trans people of color. For example, in a study by the National Institute of Health more than 56% of African-American trans women were HIV-positive compared to 27% of trans women in general. This has been connected to how trans people of color are more likely to be sex workers.

A 2012 meta analysis of studies assessing rates of HIV infection among transgender women in 15 countries found that trans women are 49 times more likely to have HIV than the general population. HIV positive trans persons are likely to be unaware of their status. In one study, 73% of HIV-positive trans women were unaware of their status.

Latin American trans women have a HIV prevalence of 18%-38% as of 2016, but most Latin American countries do not recognize transgender people as a population. Therefore, there are no laws catering to their health needs.

Transgender people have higher levels of interaction with the police than the general population. 7% of transgender Americans have been held in prison cell simply due to their gender identity/expression. This rate is 41% for transgender African-Americans. 16% of respondents had been sexually assaulted in prison, a risk factor for HIV. 20% of trans women are sexually assaulted in prison, compared to 6% of trans men. Trans women of color are more likely to be assaulted whilst in prison. 38% of black trans women report having been sexually assaulted in prison compared to 12% of white trans women.

In a San Francisco study, 68% of trans women and 55% of trans men reported having been raped, a risk factor for HIV.

Substance use

Trans people are more likely than the general population to use substances. For example, studies have shown that trans men are 50% more likely, and trans women 200% more likely to smoke cigarettes than other populations. It has been suggested that tobacco use is high among transgender people because many use it to maintain weight loss. In one study of transgender people, the majority had a history of non-injection drug use with the rates being 90% for marijuana, 66% for cocaine, 24% for heroin, and 48% for crack. It has been suggested that transgender people who are more accepted by their families are less likely to develop substance use issues.

In the Trans Mental Health Study 2012, 24% of participants had used drugs within the past year. The most commonly used drug was cannabis. 19% currently smoked. A study published in 2013 found that among a sample of transgender adults, 26.5% had engaged in non-medical use of prescription drugs, most commonly analgesics.

Gynecologic and reproductive care

Transgender and nonbinary people often encounter additional unique barriers in attaining gynecologic and reproductive care. Providers and staff often make assumptions about gender identity or expression of patients in a "women's health" clinic and many providers lack cultural competence in caring for transgender and nonbinary patients. Furthermore, many providers are not adequately trained in order to help the LGBTQ+ community. There are still many gaps in knowledge when it comes to issues such as hormone therapy and how it may impact pregnancy or fertility. Challenges in accessing insurance coverage is another common barrier to Ob/Gyn healthcare for transgender and nonbinary patients.

Health of LGBT people of color

In a review of research, Balmsam, Molina, et al., found that "LGBT issues were addressed in 3,777 articles dedicated to public health; of these, 85% omitted information on race/ethnicity of participants". However, studies that have noted race have found significant health disparities between white LGBT people and LGBT people of color. LGBT health research has also been criticized for lack of diversity in that, for example, a study may call for lesbians, but many black and minority ethnic groups do not use the term lesbian or gay to describe themselves.

There have not been many studies dedicated to researching health issues in LGBT people of color until fairly recently. Studies have determined that LGBT individuals have an elevated risk of early mortality and more mental and physical health issues than heterosexual individuals.  In particular, A study conducted by Kim, Jen, Fredriksen-Goldsen published in 2017 delved deeper into the health disparities found among LGBT older adults. It is well known in comparison with white LGBT older adults, black and Latino LGBT older adults tend to have a lower quality of life in relation to their health. The study finds that this is due to a variety of factors, including discrimination, educational attainment, income levels, and social resources. Black LGBT adults experienced higher levels of LGBT discrimination than their white counterparts. However, the study found that black and Latino LGBT adults had comparable mental health to white LGBT elders, presumed to be due to increased levels of spirituality characteristic of Latino and African American communities.

The influences of racism, homophobia, and transphobia can have detrimental effects on mental health of LGBT people of color, especially in intersection with one another. Velez, Polihronakis et al.  look at prior research that indicates that experiences of homophobia and internalized homophobia are associated with poor mental health. Similar research also indicates that racism and internalized racism are associated with poor mental health as well. When combined, discrimination and internalized oppression interact with one another and contribute to psychological distress. Both homophobia and racism contribute additively to distress, but it was noted that homophobic discrimination and internalized racism had the most significant and detrimental effects on well-being. This study shows similar results to previous research in this aspect. This pattern was also seen in a sample of LGBT Latinx people.

There are significant gaps in knowledge regarding health disparities among transgender individuals. In general, transgender individuals tends to be effected the most acutely by LGBT issues. This is even more prominent in transgender people of color. Transgender individuals are also more likely to experience greater socioeconomic disadvantages, greater stressors, and more exposure to traumatic events. Transgender individuals, particularly transgender individuals of color, struggle with access and discriminatory treatment when seeking medical and mental health care access.

Transgender people and people of color both struggle with poor health care experiences, both medical and regarding mental health, in the United States. When looking at the experiences of transgender people of color, healthcare provider's assumptions and biases about them negatively influence their healthcare experience. Even when seeking care from LGBT specific or LGBT friendly health care providers, people of color often worry about experiencing racism. Positive healthcare experiences for transgender people of color can most often be attributed to provider's respect and knowledge around gender identity and sexuality, as well as cultural competency.

LGBT people also routinely struggle with medical and mental health care access in relation to the general public. Transgender people as noted above, transgender and gender nonconforming people are significantly more likely  to express concerns about how they will be treated in seeking healthcare. LGBT people of color and LGBT people with low incomes were found to be more likely to experience care that was discriminatory and substandard. In particular, transgender people of color and transgender people with low incomes were more likely to experience care that is discriminatory and substandard. These issues are highlighted in health care institutions serving populations with limited access, options, or significant health care disparities. This is particularly true of public hospitals, which have fewer resources than nonprofit hospitals and academic medical centers, and are under deeper financial pressures. Public hospitals have very little incentive to invest in care for marginalized populations, and as such there has been very little progress on LGBT inclusion in health care. The healthcare community itself has contributed to LGBT health disparities, through prejudice and inadequate knowledge. Correcting these disparities will require a significant investment by the healthcare system.

A study conducted by Gowin, Taylor, Dunnington, Alshuwaiyer, and Cheney researches the needs of this demographic. All of the transgender asylum seekers studied had experienced some form of threat, physical assault, and/or sexual assault while living in Mexico. Stressors were reduced upon arrival in the United States, but not all and few were eliminated. Stressors included assaults (verbal, physical, and sexual), unstable environments, fear of safety, concealing undocumented status, and economic insecurity. These lead to multiple health consequences, including mental illness, sleep issues, isolation, substance use, and suicidal tendencies. Asylum seekers often had difficulties accessing health care services for hormones, and often withheld information during treatment for fear of being reported for holding undocumented status. Distrust of authority figures is not uncommon in minority groups. Methods of contact that allow trust should be built to encourage access to health services. Health promotion practices have found some success; including the use of lay health workers, which also has the benefit of employing community members. A focus on inclusive and non-judgmental communication methods in training and development can also help reduce distrust of health services by transgender and ethnic minority patients.

Healthcare education

Various bodies have called for dedicated teaching on LGBT issues for healthcare students and professionals, including the World Health Organization and the Association of American Medical Colleges. A 2017 systematic review found that dedicated training improved knowledge, attitudes and practice, but noted that programmes often had minimal involvement by LGBT individuals themselves.

Ob/gyn residents in the state of Illinois were asked to complete an online survey in order to assess their confidence to treat LGBTQ+ patients and share their experiences with LGBTQ+ individuals. Approximately 60% of the residents said that they had no experience with LGBTQ+ folks outside of the work setting . In a work setting, the results showed that the majority of the Ob/gyn residents felt unprepared to treat lesbian, bisexual, or transgender patients. About 63% of this group shared that their medical programs provide 1–5 years of LGBTQ+ healthcare training, with some residents saying that they received no education on this in the past year. A specific area that Ob/gyn residents in Illinois reported not feeling prepared to deal with included hormonal therapy for transgender patients. From this study, 90% of Ob/gyn residents report having a strong desire to learn more about how to provide healthcare for the LGBTQ+ community, but due to curriculum crowding, there has been some barriers to achieving this goal.

Several government-funded organizations have launched other initiatives to involve LGBT individuals:

"Healthy People 2020: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health" is a government-funded initiative sponsored by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, based on a 10-year agenda with the goal of improving the nation's health in measurable ways. "The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding" written by the Institute of Medicine and based on research funded by the National Institutes of Health emphasizes the importance of collecting data on the demographics of LGBT populations, improving methods for collecting this data, and increasing the participation of LGBT individuals in research. "LGBT Health and Well-being" published by the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), this 2012 report outlines the LGBT Issues Coordinating Committee's objectives for 2011 and 2012. The HHS also hosts an online center for information on LGBT health, including HHS reports, information on access to health care, and resources organized for specific communities within the LGBT population (including LGBT youth, people living with HIV, refugees, women, and older adults).

In addition, many nonprofit initiatives have worked to connect LGBT people to competent healthcare. OutCare Health and Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality (formerly known as the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association) hosts an online directories of culturally-competent medical professionals.

In 2019, WAXOH, in partnership with DatingPositives, The Phluid Project, Bi.org, Hairrari, the OUT Foundation, launched #WeNeedAButton, a campaign that calls for patient-matching sites like Yelp and ZocDoc to add a queer-friendly button or filter, so that consumers can easily see which doctors are LGBTQ-friendly. The campaign was launched during Pride 2019, on the 50th anniversary of Stonewall, and was supported by ambassador and journalist Zachary Zane and sexual health advocate Josh Robbins.

Kaiser Permanente, the third-largest health care organization in the country and headquartered in Oakland, has been recognized by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation for its commitment to LGBTQ in its 2018 Healthcare Equality Index, and has designated the organization a "healthcare equality leader" every year since 2010.

Additionally, universities including the University of Michigan have provided Continuing Medical Education courses or modules to OB/GYNs in order to be able to better serve the LGBTQ+ community. There are five modules available on YouTube that are each about fifteen minutes long and cover topics such as gender identity and insurance coverage for transgender individuals. These modules were created by physicians and activists.

COVID-19

In April 2020, educators at the University of Toronto emphasized the need to educate health care practitioners about the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ people in the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, during the pandemic, 56% of LGBT youth reported poor mental health.

Health equity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Health gap in England and Wales, 2011 Census

Health equity arises from access to the social determinants of health, specifically from wealth, power and prestige. Individuals who have consistently been deprived of these three determinants are significantly disadvantaged from health inequities, and face worse health outcomes than those who are able to access certain resources. It is not equity to simply provide every individual with the same resources; that would be equality. In order to achieve health equity, resources must be allocated based on an individual need-based principle.

According to the World Health Organization, "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". The quality of health and how health is distributed among economic and social status in a society can provide insight into the level of development within that society. Health is a basic human right and human need, and all human rights are interconnected. Thus, health must be discussed along with all other basic human rights.

Health equity is defined by the CDC as "the state in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to attain their highest level of health". It is closely associated with the social justice movement, with good health considered a fundamental human right. These inequities may include differences in the "presence of disease, health outcomes, or access to health care" between populations with a different race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or socioeconomic status.

It is important to distinguish between health inequity and health inequality. Health inequality is the term used in a number of countries to refer to those instances whereby the health of two demographic groups (not necessarily ethnic or racial groups) differs despite similar access to health care services. It can be further described as differences in health that are avoidable, unfair, and unjust, and cannot be explained by natural causes, such as biology, or differences in choice. Thus, if one population dies younger than another because of genetic differences, a non-remediable/controllable factor, we tend to say that there is a health inequality. On the other hand, if a population has a lower life expectancy due to lack of access to medications, the situation would be classified as a health inequity. These inequities may include differences in the "presence of disease, health outcomes, or access to health care". Although it is important to recognize the difference in health equity and equality, having equality in health is essential to begin achieving health equity. The importance of equitable access to healthcare has been cited as crucial to achieving many of the Millennium Development Goals.

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status is both a strong predictor of health, and a key factor underlying health inequities across populations. Poor socioeconomic status has the capacity to profoundly limit the capabilities of an individual or population, manifesting itself through deficiencies in both financial and social capital. It is clear how a lack of financial capital can compromise the capacity to maintain good health. In the UK, prior to the institution of the NHS reforms in the early 2000s, it was shown that income was an important determinant of access to healthcare resources. Because one's job or career is a primary conduit for both financial and social capital, work is an important, yet under represented, factor in health inequities research and prevention efforts. There are many ways that a job can affect one's health, such as the job's physical demands, exposure to hazards, mechanisms of employment, compensation and benefits, and availability of health and safety programs. In addition, those who are in steady jobs are less likely to face poverty and its implications and more likely to have access to health care. Maintenance of good health through the utilization of proper healthcare resources can be quite costly and therefore unaffordable to certain populations.

In China, for instance, the collapse of the Cooperative Medical System left many of the rural poor uninsured and unable to access the resources necessary to maintain good health. Increases in the cost of medical treatment made healthcare increasingly unaffordable for these populations. This issue was further perpetuated by the rising income inequality in the Chinese population. Poor Chinese were often unable to undergo necessary hospitalization and failed to complete treatment regimens, resulting in poorer health outcomes.

Similarly, in Tanzania, it was demonstrated that wealthier families were far more likely to bring their children to a healthcare provider: a significant step towards stronger healthcare. Some scholars have noted that unequal income distribution itself can be a cause of poorer health for a society as a result of "underinvestment in social goods, such as public education and health care; disruption of social cohesion and the erosion of social capital".

The role of socioeconomic status in health equity extends beyond simple monetary restrictions on an individual's purchasing power. In fact, social capital plays a significant role in the health of individuals and their communities. It has been shown that those who are better connected to the resources provided by the individuals and communities around them (those with more social capital) live longer lives. The segregation of communities on the basis of income occurs in nations worldwide and has a significant impact on quality of health as a result of a decrease in social capital for those trapped in poor neighborhoods. Social interventions, which seek to improve healthcare by enhancing the social resources of a community, are therefore an effective component of campaigns to improve a community's health. A 1998 epidemiological study showed that community healthcare approaches fared far better than individual approaches in the prevention of heart disease mortality.

Unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty used by some programs in the developing world appear to lead to a reduction in the likelihood of being sick. Such evidence can guide resource allocations to effective interventions.

Research has shown that the quality of health care does indeed vary among different socioeconomic groups. Children in families of low socioeconomic status are the most susceptible to health inequities. Equity, Social Determinants and Public Health Programmes (2010) is a book edited by Blas and Sivasankara that includes a chapter discussing health equities among children. Gathering information from 100 international surveys, this chapter states that children in poor families under 5 years of age are likely to face health disparities because the quality of their health depends on others providing for them; young children are not capable of maintaining good health on their own. In addition, these children have higher mortality rates than those in richer families due to malnutrition. Because of their low socioeconomic status, receiving health care can be challenging. Children in poor families are less likely to receive health care in general, and if they do have access to care, it is likely that the quality of that care is not highly sufficient.

Education

Education is an important factor in healthcare utilization, though it is closely intertwined with economic status. An individual may not go to a medical professional or seek care if they do not know the ills of their failure to do so, or the value of proper treatment. In Tajikistan, since the nation gained its independence, the likelihood of giving birth at home has increased rapidly among women with lower educational status. Education also has a significant impact on the quality of prenatal and maternal healthcare. Mothers with primary education consulted a doctor during pregnancy at significantly lower rates (72%) when compared to those with a secondary education (77%), technical training (88%) or a higher education (100%). There is also evidence for a correlation between socioeconomic status and health literacy; one study showed that wealthier Tanzanian families were more likely to recognize disease in their children than those that were coming from lower income backgrounds.

Social inequities are a key barrier to accessing health-related educational resources. Patients in lower socioeconomic areas will have less access to information about health in general, leading to less awareness of different diseases and health issues. Health education has proven to be a strong preventative measure that can be taken to decrease levels of illness and increase levels of visiting healthcare providers. The lack of health education can contribute to worsened health outcomes in these areas.

Education inequities are also closely associated with health inequities. Individuals with lower levels of education are more likely to incur greater health risks such as substance abuse, obesity, and injuries both intentional and unintentional. Education is also associated with greater comprehension of health information and services necessary to make the right health decisions, as well as being associated with a longer lifespan. Individuals with high grades have been observed to display better levels of protective health behavior and lower levels of risky health behaviors than their less academically gifted counterparts. Factors such as poor diets, inadequate physical activity, physical and emotional abuse, and teenage pregnancy all have significant impacts on students' academic performance and these factors tend to manifest themselves more frequently in lower-income individuals.

Spatial disparities in health

For some populations, access to healthcare and health resources is physically limited, resulting in health inequities. For instance, an individual might be physically incapable of traveling the distances required to reach healthcare services, or long distances can make seeking regular care unappealing despite the potential benefits.

In 2019, the federal government identified nearly 80 percent of rural America as "medically underserved," lacking in skilled nursing facilities, as well as rehabilitation, psychiatric and intensive care units. In rural areas, there are approximately 68 primary care doctors per 100,000 people, whereas there are 84 doctors per 100,000 in urban centers. According to the National Rural Health Association, almost 10% of rural counties had no doctors in 2017. Rural communities face lower life expectancies and increased rates of diabetes, chronic disease, and obesity.

Global concentrations of healthcare resources, as depicted by the number of physicians per 100,000 individuals, by country.

Costa Rica, for example, has demonstrable health spatial inequities with 12–14% of the population living in areas where healthcare is inaccessible. Inequity has decreased in some areas of the nation as a result of the work of healthcare reform programs, however those regions not served by the programs have experienced a slight increase in inequity.

China experienced a serious decrease in spatial health equity following the Chinese economic revolution in the 1980s as a result of the degradation of the Cooperative Medical System (CMS). The CMS provided an infrastructure for the delivery of healthcare to rural locations, as well as a framework to provide funding based upon communal contributions and government subsidies. In its absence, there was a significant decrease in the quantity of healthcare professionals (35.9%), as well as functioning clinics (from 71% to 55% of villages over 14 years) in rural areas, resulting in inequitable healthcare for rural populations. The significant poverty experienced by rural workers (some earning less than US$1 per day) further limits access to healthcare, and results in malnutrition and poor general hygiene, compounding the loss of healthcare resources. The loss of the CMS has had noticeable impacts on life expectancy, with rural regions such as areas of Western China experiencing significantly lower life expectancies.

Similarly, populations in rural Tajikistan experience spatial health inequities. A study by Jane Falkingham noted that physical access to healthcare was one of the primary factors influencing quality of maternal healthcare. Further, many women in rural areas of the country did not have adequate access to healthcare resources, resulting in poor maternal and neonatal care. These rural women were, for instance, far more likely to give birth in their homes without medical oversight.

Ethnic and racial disparities

Along with the socioeconomic factor of health disparities, race is another key factor. The United States historically had large disparities in health and access to adequate healthcare between races, and current evidence supports the notion that these racially centered disparities continue to exist and are a significant social health issue. The disparities in access to adequate healthcare include differences in the quality of care based on race and overall insurance coverage based on race. A 2002 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association identifies race as a significant determinant in the level of quality of care, with blacks receiving lower quality care than their white counterparts. This is in part because members of ethnic minorities such as African Americans are either earning low incomes, or living below the poverty line. In a 2007 Census Bureau, African American families made an average of $33,916, while their white counterparts made an average of $54,920. Due to a lack of affordable health care, the African American death rate reveals that African Americans have a higher rate of dying from treatable or preventable causes. According to a study conducted in 2005 by the Office of Minority Health—a U.S. Department of Health—African American men were 30% more likely than white men to die from heart disease. Also African American women were 34% more likely to die from breast cancer than their white counterparts. Additionally, among African American and Latino infants, mortality rates are 2 to 3 times higher than other racial groups. An analysis of more than 2 million pregnancies found that babies born to Black women worldwide had poorer outcomes (such as baby death and stillbirth) than White women. This was true even after controlling for older age and a lower level of education among mothers (an indicator of poorer economic and social status). In the same analysis, Hispanic women were 3 times more likely to experience a baby death than White women and South Asian women had an increased risk of premature birth and having a baby with low birthweight compared with White women.

Such disparities also prevalently attack indigenous communities. As members of indigenous communities adjust to western lifestyles, they have become more susceptible to developing certain chronic illnesses.

There are also considerable racial disparities in access to insurance coverage, with ethnic minorities generally having less insurance coverage than non-ethnic minorities. For example, Hispanic Americans tend to have less insurance coverage than white Americans and as a result receive less regular medical care. The level of insurance coverage is directly correlated with access to healthcare including preventive and ambulatory care. A 2010 study on racial and ethnic disparities in health done by the Institute of Medicine has shown that the aforementioned disparities cannot solely be accounted for in terms of certain demographic characteristics like: insurance status, household income, education, age, geographic location and quality of living conditions. Even when the researchers corrected for these factors, the disparities persist. Slavery has contributed to disparate health outcomes for generations of African Americans in the United States.

Ethnic health inequities also appear in nations across the African continent. A survey of the child mortality of major ethnic groups across 11 African nations (Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, and Zambia) was published in 2000 by the WHO. The study described the presence of significant ethnic parities in the child mortality rates among children younger than 5 years old, as well as in education and vaccine use. In South Africa, the legacy of apartheid still manifests itself as a differential access to social services, including healthcare based upon race and social class, and the resultant health inequities. Further, evidence suggests systematic disregard of indigenous populations in a number of countries. The Pygmies of Congo, for instance, are excluded from government health programs, discriminated against during public health campaigns, and receive poorer overall healthcare.

In a survey of five European countries (Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Italy, and France), a 1995 survey noted that only Sweden provided access to translators for 100% of those who needed it, while the other countries lacked this service potentially compromising healthcare to non-native populations. Given that non-natives composed a considerable section of these nations (6%, 17%, 3%, 1%, and 6% respectively), this could have significant detrimental effects on the health equity of the nation. In France, an older study noted significant differences in access to healthcare between native French populations, and non-French/migrant populations based upon health expenditure; however this was not fully independent of poorer economic and working conditions experienced by these populations.

A 1996 study of race-based health inequity in Australia revealed that Aborigines experienced higher rates of mortality than non-Aborigine populations. Aborigine populations experienced 10 times greater mortality in the 30–40 age range; 2.5 times greater infant mortality rate, and 3 times greater age standardized mortality rate. Rates of diarrheal diseases and tuberculosis are also significantly greater in this population (16 and 15 times greater respectively), which is indicative of the poor healthcare of this ethnic group. At this point in time, the parities in life expectancy at birth between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples were highest in Australia, when compared to the US, Canada and New Zealand. In South America, indigenous populations faced similarly poor health outcomes with maternal and infant mortality rates that were significantly higher (up to 3 to 4 times greater) than the national average. The same pattern of poor indigenous healthcare continues in India, where indigenous groups were shown to experience greater mortality at most stages of life, even when corrected for environmental effects.

Due to systemic health and social inequities people from racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States are disproportionately affected by COVID-19.

On February 5, 2021, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, noted regarding the global inequity in the access to COVID-19 vaccines, that almost 130 countries had not yet given a single dose. In early April 2021, the WHO reported that 87% of existing vaccines had been distributed to the wealthiest countries, while only 0.2% had been distributed to the poorest countries. As a result, one-quarter of the populations of those wealthy countries had already been vaccinated, while only 1 in 500 residents of the poor countries had been vaccinated.

LGBT health disparities

Sexuality is a basis of health discrimination and inequity throughout the world. Homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and gender-variant populations around the world experience a range of health problems related to their sexuality and gender identity, some of which are complicated further by limited research.

In spite of recent advances, LGBT populations in China, India, and Chile continue to face significant discrimination and barriers to care. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes that there is inadequate research data about the effects of LGBT discrimination on morbidity and mortality rates in the patient population. In addition, retrospective epidemiological studies on LGBT populations are difficult to conduct as a result of the practice that sexual orientation is not noted on death certificates. WHO has proposed that more research about the LGBT patient population is needed for improved understanding of its  unique health needs and barriers to accessing care.

Recognizing the need for LGBT healthcare research, the Director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services designated sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) as a health disparity population for NIH research in October 2016. For the purposes of this designation, the Director defines SGM as "encompass[ing] lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations, as well as those whose sexual orientation, gender identity and expressions, or reproductive development varies from traditional, societal, cultural, or physiological norms". This designation has prioritized research into the extent, cause, and potential mitigation of health disparities among SGM populations within the larger LGBT community.

While many aspects of LGBT health disparities are heretofore uninvestigated, at this stage, it is known that one of the main forms of healthcare discrimination  LGBT individuals face is discrimination from healthcare workers or institutions themselves. A systematic literature review of publications in English and Portuguese from 2004 to 2014 demonstrate significant difficulties in accessing care secondary to discrimination and homophobia from healthcare professionals. This discrimination can take the form of verbal abuse, disrespectful conduct, refusal of care, the withholding of health information,  inadequate treatment, and outright violence. In a study analyzing the quality of healthcare for South African men who have sex with men (MSM), researchers interviewed a cohort of individuals about their health experiences, finding that MSM who identified as homosexual felt their access to healthcare was limited due to an inability to find clinics employing healthcare workers who did not discriminate against their sexuality. They also reportedly faced "homophobic verbal harassment from healthcare workers when presenting for STI treatment". Further, MSM who did not feel comfortable disclosing their sexual activity to healthcare workers failed to identify as homosexuals, which limited the quality of the treatment they received.

Additionally, members of the LGBT community contend with health care disparities due, in part, to lack of provider training and awareness of the population's healthcare needs. Transgender individuals believe that there is a higher importance of providing gender identity (GI) information more than sexual orientation (SO) to providers to help inform them of better care and safe treatment for these patients. Studies regarding patient-provider communication in the LGBT patient community show that providers themselves report a significant lack of awareness regarding the health issues LGBT-identifying patients face. As a component of this fact, medical schools do not focus much attention on LGBT health issues in their curriculum; the LGBT-related topics that are discussed tend to be limited to HIV/AIDS, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Among LGBT-identifying individuals, transgender individuals face especially significant barriers to treatment. Many countries still do not have legal recognition of transgender or non-binary gender individuals leading to placement in mis-gendered hospital wards and medical discrimination. Seventeen European states mandate sterilization of individuals who seek recognition of a gender identity that diverges from their birth gender. In addition to many of the same barriers as the rest of the LGBT community, a WHO bulletin points out that globally, transgender individuals often also face a higher disease burden. A 2010 survey of transgender and gender-variant people in the United States revealed that transgender individuals faced a significant level of discrimination. The survey indicated that 19% of individuals experienced a healthcare worker refusing care because of their gender, 28% faced harassment from a healthcare worker, 2% encountered violence, and 50% saw a doctor who was not able or qualified to provide transgender-sensitive care. In Kuwait, there have been reports of transgender individuals being reported to legal authorities by medical professionals, preventing safe access to care. An updated version of the U.S. survey from 2015 showed little change in terms of healthcare experiences for transgender and gender variant individuals. The updated survey revealed that 23% of individuals reported not seeking necessary medical care out of fear of discrimination, and 33% of individuals who had been to a doctor within a year of taking the survey reported negative encounters with medical professionals related to their transgender status.

The stigmatization represented particularly in the transgender population  creates a health disparity for LGBT individuals with regard to mental health. The LGBT community is at increased risk for psychosocial distress, mental health complications, suicidality, homelessness, and substance abuse, often complicated by access-based under-utilization or fear of health services. Transgender and gender-variant individuals have been found to experience higher rates of mental health disparity than LGB individuals. According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, for example, 39% of respondents reported serious psychological distress, compared to 5% of the general population.

These mental health facts are informed by a history of anti-LGBT bias in health care. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) listed homosexuality as a disorder until 1973; transgender status was listed as a disorder until 2012. This was amended in 2013 with the DSM-5 when "gender identity disorder" was replaced with "gender dysphoria", reflecting that simply identifying as transgender is not itself pathological and that the diagnosis is instead for the distress a transgender person may experience as a result of the discordance between assigned gender and gender identity.

LGBT health issues have received disproportionately low levels of medical research, leading to difficulties in assessing appropriate strategies for LGBT treatment. For instance, a review of medical literature regarding LGBT patients revealed that there are significant gaps in the medical understanding of cervical cancer in lesbian and bisexual individuals it is unclear whether its prevalence in this community is a result of probability or some other preventable cause. For example, LGBT people report poorer cancer care experiences. It is incorrectly assumed that LGBT women have a lower incidence of cervical cancer than their heterosexual counterparts, resulting in lower rates of screening. Such findings illustrate the need for continued research focused on the circumstances and needs of LGBT individuals and the inclusion in policy frameworks of sexual orientation and gender identity as social determinants of health.

A June 2017 review sponsored by the European commission as part of a larger project to identify and diminish health inequities, found that LGB are at higher risk of some cancers and that LGBTI were at higher risk of mental illness, and that these risks were not adequately addressed. The causes of health inequities were, according to the review, "i) cultural and social norms that preference and prioritise heterosexuality; ii) minority stress associated with sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics; iii) victimisation; iv) discrimination (individual and institutional), and; v) stigma."

Sex and gender in healthcare equity

Sex and gender in medicine

Both gender and sex are significant factors that influence health. Sex is characterized by female and male biological differences in regards to gene expression, hormonal concentration, and anatomical characteristics. Gender is an expression of behavior and lifestyle choices. Both sex and gender inform each other, and differences between the two genders influence disease manifestation and associated healthcare approaches. Understanding how the interaction of sex and gender contributes to disparity in the context of health allows providers to ensure quality outcomes for patients. This interaction is complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing between sex and gender given their intertwined nature; sex modifies gender, and gender can modify sex, thereby impacting health.  Sex and gender can both be considered sources of health disparity; both contribute to men and women's susceptibility to various health conditions, including cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disorders.

Health disparities in the male population

Gender and sex are both components of health disparity in the male population. In non-Western regions, males tend to have a health advantage over women due to gender discrimination, evidenced by infanticide, early marriage, and domestic abuse for females. In most regions of the world, the mortality rate is higher for adult men than for adult women; for example, adult men develop fatal illnesses with more frequency than females. The leading causes of the higher male death rate are accidents, injuries, violence, and cardiovascular diseases. In a number of countries, males also face a heightened risk of mortality as a result of behavior and greater propensity for violence.

Physicians tend to offer invasive procedures to male patients more often than to female patients. Furthermore, men are more likely to smoke than women and experience smoking-related health complications later in life as a result; this trend is also observed in regard to other substances, such as marijuana, in Jamaica, where the rate of use is 2–3 times more for men than women. Men are also more likely to have severe chronic conditions and a lower life expectancy than women in the United States.

Health disparities in the female population

Gender and sex are also components of health disparity in the female population. The 2012 World Development Report (WDR) noted that women in developing nations experience greater mortality rates than men in developing nations. Additionally, women in developing countries have a much higher risk of maternal death than those in developed countries. The highest risk of dying during childbirth is 1 in 6 in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, compared to nearly 1 in 30,000 in Sweden—a disparity that is much greater than that for neonatal or child mortality.

While women in the United States tend to live longer than men, they generally are of lower socioeconomic status (SES) and therefore have more barriers to accessing healthcare. Being of lower SES also tends to increase societal pressures, which can lead to higher rates of depression and chronic stress and, in turn, negatively impact health. Women are also more likely than men to suffer from sexual or intimate-partner violence both in the United States and worldwide. In Europe, women who grew up in poverty are more likely to have lower muscle strength and higher disability in old age.Women have better access to healthcare in the United States than they do in many other places in the world. In one population study conducted in Harlem, New York, 86% of women reported having privatized or publicly assisted health insurance, while only 74% of men reported having any health insurance. This trend is representative of the general population of the United States. On the other hand, a woman's access to healthcare in rural communities has recently become a matter of concern. Access to maternal obstetric care has decreased in rural communities due to the increase in both hospital closers and labor & delivery center closures that have placed an increased burden on families living in these areas. Burdens faced by women in these rural communities include financial burdens on traveling to receive adequate care. Millions of individuals living in rural areas in the United States are more at risk of having decreased access to maternal health care facilities if the community is low-income. These women are more at risk of experiencing adverse maternal outcomes like a higher risk of having postpartum depression, having an out-of-hospital birth, and on the extreme end, maternal morbidity and mortality.

In addition, women's pain tends to be treated less seriously and initially ignored by clinicians when compared to their treatment of men's pain complaints. Historically, women have not been included in the design or practice of clinical trials, which has slowed the understanding of women's reactions to medications and created a research gap. This has led to post-approval adverse events among women, resulting in several drugs being pulled from the market. However, the clinical research industry is aware of the problem, and has made progress in correcting it.

Cultural factors

Health disparities are also due in part to cultural factors that involve practices based not only on sex, but also gender status. For example, in China, health disparities have distinguished medical treatment for men and women due to the cultural phenomenon of preference for male children. Recently, gender-based disparities have decreased as females have begun to receive higher-quality care. Additionally, a girl's chances of survival are impacted by the presence of a male sibling; while girls do have the same chance of survival as boys if they are the oldest girl, they have a higher probability of being aborted or dying young if they have an older sister.

In India, gender-based health inequities are apparent in early childhood. Many families provide better nutrition for boys in the interest of maximizing future productivity given that boys are generally seen as breadwinners. In addition, boys receive better care than girls and are hospitalized at a greater rate. The magnitude of these disparities increases with the severity of poverty in a given population.

Additionally, the cultural practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is known to impact women's health, though is difficult to know the worldwide extent of this practice. While generally thought of as a Sub-Saharan African practice, it may have roots in the Middle East as well. The estimated 3 million girls who are subjected to FGM each year potentially suffer both immediate and lifelong negative effects. Immediately following FGM, girls commonly experience excessive bleeding and urine retention. Long-term consequences include urinary tract infections, bacterial vaginosis, pain during intercourse, and difficulties in childbirth that include prolonged labor, vaginal tears, and excessive bleeding. Women who have undergone FGM also have higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV2) than women who have not.

Health inequality and environmental influence

Minority populations have increased exposure to environmental hazards that include lack of neighborhood resources, structural and community factors as well as residential segregation that result in a cycle of disease and stress. The environment that surrounds us can influence individual behaviors and lead to poor health choices and therefore outcomes. Minority neighborhoods have been continuously noted to have more fast food chains and fewer grocery stores than predominantly white neighborhoods. These food deserts affect a family's ability to have easy access to nutritious food for their children. This lack of nutritious food extends beyond the household into the schools that have a variety of vending machines and deliver over processed foods. These environmental condition have social ramifications and in the first time in US history is it projected that the current generation will live shorter lives than their predecessors will.

In addition, minority neighborhoods have various health hazards that result from living close to highways and toxic waste factories or general dilapidated structures and streets. These environmental conditions create varying degrees of health risk from noise pollution, to carcinogenic toxic exposures from asbestos and radon that result in increase chronic disease, morbidity, and mortality. The quality of residential environment such as damaged housing has been shown to increase the risk of adverse birth outcomes, which is reflective of a communities health. This occurs through exposure to lead in paint and lead contaminated soil as well as indoor air pollutants such as second-hand smoke and fine particulate matter. Housing conditions can create varying degrees of health risk that lead to complications of birth and long-term consequences in the aging population. In addition, occupational hazards can add to the detrimental effects of poor housing conditions. It has been reported that a greater number of minorities work in jobs that have higher rates of exposure to toxic chemical, dust and fumes. One example of this is the environmental hazards that poor Latino farmworkers face in the United States. This group is exposed to high levels of particulate matter and pesticides on the job, which have contributed to increased cancer rates, lung conditions, and birth defects in their communities.

Racial segregation is another environmental factor that occurs through the discriminatory action of those organizations and working individuals within the real estate industry, whether in the housing markets or rentals. Even though residential segregation is noted in all minority groups, blacks tend to be segregated regardless of income level when compared to Latinos and Asians. Thus, segregation results in minorities clustering in poor neighborhoods that have limited employment, medical care, and educational resources, which is associated with high rates of criminal behavior. In addition, segregation affects the health of individual residents because the environment is not conducive to physical exercise due to unsafe neighborhoods that lack recreational facilities and have nonexistent park space. Racial and ethnic discrimination adds an additional element to the environment that individuals have to interact with daily. Individuals that reported discrimination have been shown to have an increase risk of hypertension in addition to other physiological stress related affects. The high magnitude of environmental, structural, socioeconomic stressors leads to further compromise on the psychological and physical being, which leads to poor health and disease.

Individuals living in rural areas, especially poor rural areas, have access to fewer health care resources. Although 20 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, only 9 percent of physicians practice in rural settings. Individuals in rural areas typically must travel longer distances for care, experience long waiting times at clinics, or are unable to obtain the necessary health care they need in a timely manner. Rural areas characterized by a largely Hispanic population average 5.3 physicians per 10,000 residents compared with 8.7 physicians per 10,000 residents in nonrural areas. Financial barriers to access, including lack of health insurance, are also common among the urban poor.

Disparities in access to health care

Reasons for disparities in access to health care are many, but can include the following:

  • Lack of a regular source of care. Without access to a regular source of care, patients have greater difficulty obtaining care, fewer doctor visits, and more difficulty obtaining prescription drugs. Compared to whites, minority groups in the United States are less likely to have a doctor they go to on a regular basis and are more likely to use emergency rooms and clinics as their regular source of care. In the United Kingdom, which is much more racially harmonious, this issue arises for a different reason; since 2004, NHS GPs have not been responsible for care out of normal GP surgery opening hours, leading to significantly higher attendances in A+E
  • Lack of financial resources. Although the lack of financial resources is a barrier to health care access for many Americans, the impact on access appears to be greater for minority populations.
  • Legal barriers. Access to medical care by low-income immigrant minorities can be hindered by legal barriers to public insurance programs. For example, in the United States federal law bars states from providing Medicaid coverage to immigrants who have been in the country fewer than five years. Another example could be when a non-English speaking person attends a clinic where the receptionist does not speak the person's language. This is mostly seen in people who have limited English proficiency, or LEP.
  • Structural barriers. These barriers include poor transportation, an inability to schedule appointments quickly or during convenient hours, and excessive time spent in the waiting room, all of which affect a person's ability and willingness to obtain needed care.
  • Scarcity of providers. In inner cities, rural areas, and communities with high concentrations of minority populations, access to medical care can be limited due to the scarcity of primary care practitioners, specialists, and diagnostic facilities. This scarcity can also extend to the personnel in the medical laboratory with some geographical regions having significantly diminished access to advanced diagnostic methods and pathology care. In the UK, Monitor (a quango) has a legal obligation to ensure that sufficient provision exists in all parts of the nation.
  • The health care financing system. The Institute of Medicine in the United States says fragmentation of the U.S. health care delivery and financing system is a barrier to accessing care. Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be enrolled in health insurance plans which place limits on covered services and offer a limited number of health care providers.
  • Linguistic barriers. Language differences restrict access to medical care for minorities in the United States who have limited English proficiency.
  • Health literacy. This is where patients have problems obtaining, processing, and understanding basic health information. For example, patients with a poor understanding of good health may not know when it is necessary to seek care for certain symptoms. While problems with health literacy are not limited to minority groups, the problem can be more pronounced in these groups than in whites due to socioeconomic and educational factors. A study conducted in Mdantsane, South Africa depicts the correlation of maternal education and the antenatal visits for pregnancy. As patients have a greater education, they tend to use maternal health care services more than those with a lesser maternal education background.
  • Lack of diversity in the health care workforce. A major reason for disparities in access to care are the cultural differences between predominantly white health care providers and minority patients. Only 4% of physicians in the United States are African American, and Hispanics represent just 5%, even though these percentages are much less than their groups' proportion of the United States population.
  • Age. Age can also be a factor in health disparities for a number of reasons. As many older Americans exist on fixed incomes which may make paying for health care expenses difficult. Additionally, they may face other barriers such as impaired mobility or lack of transportation which make accessing health care services challenging for them physically. Also, they may not have the opportunity to access health information via the internet as less than 15% of Americans over the age of 65 have access to the internet. This could put older individuals at a disadvantage in terms of accessing valuable information about their health and how to protect it. On the other hand, older individuals in the US (65 or above) are provided with medical care via Medicare.
  • Criminalization and lack of research of traditional medicine, and mental health treatments. Mental illness accounts for about one-third of adult disability globally. Conventional drug treatments have dominated psychiatry for decades, without a breakthrough in mental healthcare. Access to psychedelic-assisted therapy, and the decriminalization of Psilocybin and other entheogens are questions of health justice.

Health Insurance

A major part of the United States' healthcare system is health insurance. The main types of health insurance in the United States includes taxpayer-funded health insurance and private health insurance. Funded through state and federal taxes, some common examples of taxpayer-funded health insurance include Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP. Private health insurance is offered in a variety of forms, and includes plans such as Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO's) and Preferred Provider Organization (PPO's). While health insurance increases the affordability of healthcare in the United States, issues of access along with additional related issues act as barriers to health equity.

There are many issues due to health insurance that affect health equity, including the following:

  • Health Insurance Literacy. Within these health insurance plans, common aspects of the insurance include premiums, deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, coverage limits, in-network versus out-of-network providers, and prior authorization. According to a United Health survey, only 9% of Americans surveyed understood these health insurance terms. To address issues in finding available insurance plans and confusion around the components of health insurance policies, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) set up state-mandated health insurance marketplaces or health exchanges, where individuals can research and compare different kinds of health care plans and their respective components. Between 2014 and 2020, over 11.4 million people have been able to sign up for health insurance through the Marketplaces. However, most Marketplaces focus more on the presentation of health insurances and their coverages, rather than including detailed explanations of the health insurance terms.
  • Lack of universal health care or health insurance coverage. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 28.9 million people in the United States were uninsured in 2018, and that number would rise to an estimated 35 million people by 2029. Without health insurance, patients are more likely to postpone medical care, go without needed medical care, go without prescription medicines, and be denied access to care. Minority groups in the United States lack insurance coverage at higher rates than whites. This problem does not exist in countries with fully funded public health systems, such as the examplar of the NHS.
  • Underinsured or inefficient health insurance coverage. While there are many causes of underinsurance, a common a reason is due to low premiums, the up front yearly or monthly amount individuals pay for their insurance policy, and high deductibles, the amount paid out of pocket by the policy holder before an insurance provider will pay any expenses. Under the ACA, individuals were subject to a fee called the Shared Responsibility Payment, which occurred as a result of not buying health insurance despite being able to afford it. While this mandate was aimed at increasing health insurance rates for Americans, it also led many individuals to sign up for relatively inexpensive health insurance plans that did not provide adequate health coverage in order to avoid the repercussions of the mandate. Similar to those who lack health insurance, these underinsured individuals also deal with the side effects that occur as a result of lack of care.

Dental healthcare

In many countries, dental healthcare is less accessible than other kinds of healthcare resulting in increased risk for oral and systemic diseases. In Western countries, dental healthcare providers are present, and private or public healthcare systems typically facilitate access. However, access remains limited for marginalized groups such as the homeless, racial minorities, and those who are homebound or disabled. In Central and Eastern Europe, the privatization of dental healthcare has resulted in a shortage of affordable options for lower-income people. In Eastern Europe, school-age children formerly had access through school programs, but these have been discontinued. Therefore, many children no longer have access to care. Access to services and the breadth of services provided is greatly reduced in developing regions. Such services may be limited to emergency care and pain relief, neglecting preventative or restorative services. Regions like Africa, Asia, and Latin America do not have enough dental health professionals to meet the needs of the populace. In Africa, for example, there is only one dentist for every 150,000 people, compared to industrialized countries which average one dentist per 2,000 people.

Disparities in quality of health care

Health disparities in the quality of care exist and are based on language and ethnicity/race which includes:

Problems with patient-provider communication

Communication is critical for the delivery of appropriate and effective treatment and care, regardless of a patient's race, and miscommunication can lead to incorrect diagnosis, improper use of medications, and failure to receive follow-up care. The patient provider relationship is dependent on the ability of both individuals to effectively communicate. Language and culture both play a significant role in communication during a medical visit. Among the patient population, minorities face greater difficulty in communicating with their physicians. Patients when surveyed responded that 19% of the time they have problems communicating with their providers which included understanding doctor, feeling doctor listened, and had questions but did not ask. In contrast, the Hispanic population had the largest problem communicating with their provider, 33% of the time. Communication has been linked to health outcomes, as communication improves so does patient satisfaction which leads to improved compliance and then to improved health outcomes. Quality of care is impacted as a result of an inability to communicate with health care providers. Language plays a pivotal role in communication and efforts need to be taken to ensure excellent communication between patient and provider. Among limited English proficient patients in the United States, the linguistic barrier is even greater. Less than half of non-English speakers who say they need an interpreter during clinical visits report having one. The absence of interpreters during a clinical visit adds to the communication barrier. Furthermore, inability of providers to communicate with limited English proficient patients leads to more diagnostic procedures, more invasive procedures, and over prescribing of medications. Language barriers have not only hindered appointment scheduling, prescription filling, and clear communications, but have also been associated with health declines, which can be attributed to reduced compliance and delays in seeking care, which could affect particularly refugee health in the United States.  Many health-related settings provide interpreter services for their limited English proficient patients. This has been helpful when providers do not speak the same language as the patient. However, there is mounting evidence that patients need to communicate with a language concordant physician (not simply an interpreter) to receive the best medical care, bond with the physician, and be satisfied with the care experience. Having patient-physician language discordant pairs (i.e. Spanish-speaking patient with an English-speaking physician) may also lead to greater medical expenditures and thus higher costs to the organization. Additional communication problems result from a decrease or lack of cultural competence by providers. It is important for providers to be cognizant of patients' health beliefs and practices without being judgmental or reacting. Understanding a patients' view of health and disease is important for diagnosis and treatment. So providers need to assess patients' health beliefs and practices to improve quality of care.[168] Patient health decisions can be influenced by religious beliefs, mistrust of Western medicine, and familial and hierarchical roles, all of which a white provider may not be familiar with. Other type of communication problems are seen in LGBT health care with the spoken heterosexist (conscious or unconscious) attitude on LGBT patients, lack of understanding on issues like having no sex with men (lesbians, gynecologic examinations) and other issues.

Provider discrimination

Provider discrimination occurs when health care providers either unconsciously or consciously treat certain racial and ethnic patients differently from other patients. This may be due to stereotypes that providers may have towards ethnic/racial groups. A March, 2000 study from Social Science & Medicine suggests that doctors may be more likely to ascribe negative racial stereotypes to their minority patients. This may occur regardless of consideration for education, income, and personality characteristics. Two types of stereotypes may be involved, automatic stereotypes or goal modified stereotypes. Automated stereotyping is when stereotypes are automatically activated and influence judgments/behaviors outside of consciousness. Goal modified stereotype is a more conscious process, done when specific needs of clinician arise (time constraints, filling in gaps in information needed) to make a complex decisions. Physicians are unaware of their implicit biases. Some research suggests that ethnic minorities are less likely than whites to receive a kidney transplant once on dialysis or to receive pain medication for bone fractures. Critics question this research and say further studies are needed to determine how doctors and patients make their treatment decisions. Others argue that certain diseases cluster by ethnicity and that clinical decision making does not always reflect these differences.

Lack of preventive care

According to the 2009 National Healthcare Disparities Report, uninsured Americans are less likely to receive preventive services in health care. For example, minorities are not regularly screened for colon cancer and the death rate for colon cancer has increased among African Americans and Hispanic populations. Furthermore, limited English proficient patients are also less likely to receive preventive health services such as mammograms. Studies have shown that use of professional interpreters have significantly reduced disparities in the rates of fecal occult testing, flu immunizations and pap smears. In the UK, Public Health England, a universal service free at the point of use, which forms part of the NHS, offers regular screening to any member of the population considered to be in an at-risk group (such as individuals over 45) for major disease (such as colon cancer, or diabetic-retinopathy).

Plans for achieving health equity

There are a multitude of strategies for achieving health equity and reducing disparities outlined in scholarly texts, some examples include:

  • Advocacy. Advocacy for health equity has been identified as a key means of promoting favourable policy change. EuroHealthNet carried out a systematic review of the academic and grey literature. It found, amongst other things, that certain kinds of evidence may be more persuasive in advocacy efforts, that practices associated with knowledge transfer and translation can increase the uptake of knowledge, that there are many different potential advocates and targets of advocacy and that advocacy efforts need to be tailored according to context and target. As a result of its work, it produced an online advocacy for health equity toolkit.
  • Provider based incentives to improve healthcare for ethnic populations. One source of health inequity stems from unequal treatment of non-white patients in comparison with white patients. Creating provider based incentives to create greater parity between treatment of white and non-white patients is one proposed solution to eliminate provider bias. These incentives typically are monetary because of its effectiveness in influencing physician behavior.
  • Using Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) shows promise in reducing healthcare provider bias in turn promoting health equity. In theory EBM can reduce disparities however other research suggests that it might exacerbate them instead. Some cited shortcomings include EBM's injection of clinical inflexibility in decision making and its origins as a purely cost driven measure.
  • Increasing awareness. The most cited measure to improving health equity relates to increasing public awareness. A lack of public awareness is a key reason why there has not been significant gains in reducing health disparities in ethnic and minority populations. Increased public awareness would lead to increased congressional awareness, greater availability of disparity data, and further research into the issue of health disparities.
  • The Gradient Evaluation Framework. The evidence base defining which policies and interventions are most effective in reducing health inequalities is extremely weak. It is important therefore that policies and interventions which seek to influence health inequity be more adequately evaluated. Gradient Evaluation Framework (GEF) is an action-oriented policy tool that can be applied to assess whether policies will contribute to greater health equity amongst children and their families.
  • The AIM framework. In a pilot study, researchers examined the role of AIM—ability, incentives, and management feedback—in reducing care disparity in pressure-ulcer detection between African American and Caucasian residents. The results showed that while the program was implemented, the provision of (1) training to enhance ability, (2) monetary incentives to enhance motivation, and (3) management feedback to enhance accountability led to successful reduction in pressure ulcers. Specifically, the detection gap between the two groups decreased. The researchers suggested additional replications with longer duration to assess the effectiveness of the AIM framework.
  • Monitoring actions on the social determinants of health. In 2017, citing the need for accountability for the pledges made by countries in the Rio Political Declaration on Social Determinants of Health, the World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund called for the monitoring of intersectoral interventions on the social determinants of health that improve health equity.
  • Changing the distribution of health services. Health services play a major role in health equity. Health inequities stem from lack of access to care due to poor economic status and an interaction among other social determinants of health. The majority of high quality health services are distributed among the wealthy people in society, leaving those who are poor with limited options. In order to change this fact and move towards achieving health equity, it is essential that health care increases in areas or neighborhoods consisting of low socioeconomic families and individuals.
  • Prioritize treatment among the poor. Because of the challenges that arise from accessing health care with low economic status, many illnesses and injuries go untreated or are not given sufficient treatment. Promoting treatment as a priority among the poor will give them the resources they need in order to achieve good health, because health is a basic human right.
  • Implementing medical pluralism. Extreme differences that underlie urban and alternative medicine approaches emphasize the need for a system that represents the duality of the populations it intends to serve. Urban medicine generally believes that technological advancement is the best way to help treat illness as it allows for a more "sophisticated" mode of care; alternative medicine is more traditional in relying solely on herbal and natural remedies believing that the elaborate institutions of urban care are not best suited for serving individual needs. Medical pluralism, hence, is an adaptive tactic most effective for communities that include Indigenous people, and mixed rural-urban populations. Medical pluralism acknowledges the needs of a variety of people and is a step closer to health equity. Medical pluralism "avoids the extremes'' of most current healthcare delivery approaches and provides a middle-ground perspective on tackling health issues that are not solved by urban or rural health alone. By practicing integrative medicine, chronic and unresolved health issues are better treated, borrowing from the technological and philosophical approaches of both models of care. Aimed at embracing both medical techniques, medical pluralism is currently being considered in nations with diverse communities; it is manifested in the practice of integrative medicine which is a deliberate execution of that approach. There are currently ongoing efforts to implement this dual model of healthcare delivery regionally in nations composed of very diverse communities, and such is the case in many Latin American countries such as Ecuador that have a large indigenous population. The process of successfully implementing an integrative healthcare system is discussed as having six main steps that pose different challenges. Guito et al.'s guidelines for each steps describes the first as being 'imperceptible integration" to the sixth being "total integration".
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be helpful in identifying and improving issues of health disparities. A recent scoping review of the literature found that it is important to engage with various communities while AI health applications are being developed and also reviewed based on various biases that are later identified through this work.
  • Pandemic Treaty. The WHO's member states made health equity the central principle of the convention or other international instrument under negotiation.

G20's initiative for healthcare

In 2023, the G20 under its Affordable Healthcare Model Hospital initiative, with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, India, opened a 100-bed facility in Srikakulam, drawing support from the Aarogyasri scheme.

Health inequalities

Health inequality is the term used in a number of countries to refer to those instances whereby the health of two demographic groups (not necessarily ethnic or racial groups) differs despite comparative access to health care services. Such examples include higher rates of morbidity and mortality for those in lower occupational classes than those in higher occupational classes, and the increased likelihood of those from ethnic minorities being diagnosed with a mental health disorder. In Canada, the issue was brought to public attention by the LaLonde report.

In UK, the Black Report was produced in 1980 to highlight inequalities. On 11 February 2010, Sir Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London, published the Fair Society, Healthy Lives report on the relationship between health and poverty. Marmot described his findings as illustrating a "social gradient in health": the life expectancy for the poorest is seven years shorter than for the most wealthy, and the poor are more likely to have a disability. In its report on this study, The Economist argued that the material causes of this contextual health inequality include unhealthful lifestyles - smoking remains more common, and obesity is increasing fastest, amongst the poor in Britain.

In June 2018, the European Commission launched the Joint Action Health Equity in Europe. Forty-nine participants from 25 European Union Member States will work together to address health inequalities and the underlying social determinants of health across Europe. Under the coordination of the Italian Institute of Public Health, the Joint Action aims to achieve greater equity in health in Europe across all social groups while reducing the inter-country heterogeneity in tackling health inequalities.

Poor health and economic inequality

Poor health outcomes appear to be an effect of economic inequality across a population. Nations and regions with greater economic inequality show poorer outcomes in life expectancy, mental health, drug abuse, obesity, educational performance, teenage birthrates, and ill health due to violence. On an international level, there is a positive correlation between developed countries with high economic equality and longevity. This is unrelated to average income per capita in wealthy nations. Economic gain only impacts life expectancy to a great degree in countries in which the mean per capita annual income is less than approximately $25,000. The United States shows exceptionally low health outcomes for a developed country, despite having the highest national healthcare expenditure in the world. The US ranks 31st in life expectancy. Americans have a lower life expectancy than their European counterparts, even when factors such as race, income, diet, smoking, and education are controlled for.

Relative inequality negatively affects health on an international, national, and institutional levels. The patterns seen internationally hold true between more and less economically equal states in the United States. The patterns seen internationally hold true between more and less economically equal states in the United States, that is, more equal states show more desirable health outcomes. Importantly, inequality can have a negative health impact on members of lower echelons of institutions. The Whitehall I and II studies looked at the rates of cardiovascular disease and other health risks in British civil servants and found that, even when lifestyle factors were controlled for, members of lower status in the institution showed increased mortality and morbidity on a sliding downward scale from their higher status counterparts. The negative aspects of inequality are spread across the population. For example, when comparing the United States (a more unequal nation) to England (a less unequal nation), the US shows higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, cancer, lung disease, and heart disease across all income levels. This is also true of the difference between mortality across all occupational classes in highly equal Sweden as compared to less-equal England.

Health inequities and bias in research

Research to identify health inequities, how they arise and what can be done to address them is essential to securing health equity.  However, the same exclusionary social structures that contribute to health inequities in society also influence and are reproduced by researchers and public health institutions. In other words, medicine and public health organizations have evolved to better meet the needs of some groups more than others. While there are many examples of bias in medical and public health research, some general categories of exclusionary research practices include: 1) Structural invisibility - approaches to collection, analysis or publication of data which hide the potential contribution of social factors to the distribution of health risks or outcomes. For example, limitations in public health surveys in the United States to collect data on race, ethnicity, and nativity; (2) Institutionalized exclusion - codification of exclusionary social structures in research practices, instruments, and scientific models resulting in an inherent bias in favor of the normative group. For example, the definition of a human as an 80 kg man in toxicology; (3) Unexamined assumptions - cultural norms and unconscious bias that can impact all aspects of research. In other words, assuming that the researchers' perspective and understanding is objective and universally shared.  For example, the lack of conceptual equivalence across multi-lingual survey instruments.

Health disparity and Genomics

Genomics applications continue to increase in clinical/medical applications. Historically, results from studies do not include underrepresented communities and races. The question of who benefits from publicly funded genomics is an important public health consideration, and attention will be needed to ensure that implementation of genomic medicine does not further entrench social‐equity concerns. Currently the National Human Genome Research Institute counts with a Genomics and Health Disparities Interest Group to tackle the issues of accessibility and application of genomic medicine to communities not normally represented. The Director of the Health Disparities Group, Vence L. Bonham Jr., leads a team that seeks to qualify and better understand the disparities and reduce the gap in access to genetic counseling, inclusion of minority communities in original research, and access to genetic information to improve health.

Pain and pleasure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_and...