Disparities In Health Care Research Proposal

PAGES
15
WORDS
4592
Cite

¶ … U.S. residents want a society in which all persons live long, healthy lives (1); however, that vision is yet to be realized fully. As two of its primary goals, CDC aims to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality and to eliminate disparities in health between segments of the U.S. population. The first of its kind, this 2011 CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report (2011 CHDIR) represents a milestone in CDC's long history of working to eliminate disparities. Health disparities are differences in health outcomes and their determinants between segments of the population, as defined by social, demographic, environmental, and geographic attributes (7). Health inequalities, which is sometimes used interchangeably with the term health disparities, is more often used in the scientific and economic literature to refer to summary measures of population health associated with individual- or group-specific attributes (e.g., income, education, or race/ethnicity) (8). Health inequities are a subset of health inequalities that are modifiable, associated with social disadvantage, and considered ethically unfair (9). Health disparities, inequalities, and inequities are important indicators of community health and provide information for decision making and intervention implementation to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality. Except in the next section of this report that describes selected health inequalities, this report uses the term health disparities as it is defined in U.S. federal laws (10,11) and commonly used in the U.S. public health literature to refer to gaps in health between segments of the population.

Public Health Importance of Health Disparities

Increasingly, the research, policy, and public health practice literature report substantial disparities in life expectancy, morbidity, risk factors, and quality of life, as well as persistence of these disparities among segments of the population (12 -- 16). In 2007, the Healthy People 2010 Midcourse Review revealed progress on certain objectives but less than adequate progress toward eliminating health disparities for the majority of objectives among segments of the U.S. population, defined by race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, geographic location, and disability status (17).

During 1980 -- 2000, the U.S. population became older and more ethnically diverse (18), and during 1992 -- 2005, household income inequality increased (19). Although the combined effects of changes in the age structure, racial/ethnic diversity, and income inequality on health disparities are difficult to assess, the nation is likely to continue experiencing substantial racial/ethnic and socioeconomic health disparities, even though overall health outcomes measured by Healthy People 2010 objectives are improving for the nation. Because vulnerable populations are more likely than others to be affected adversely by economic recession, the recent downturn in the global economy might worsen health disparities throughout the United States if the coverage and effectiveness of safety-net and targeted programs do not keep pace with needs (20).

About This Report

CHDIR 2011 consolidates the most recent national data available on disparities in mortality, morbidity, behavioral risk factors, health-care access, preventive health services, and social determinants of critical health problems in the United States by using selected indicators. Data presented throughout CHDIR 2011 provide a compelling argument for action. The data pertaining to inequalities in income, morbidity, mortality, and self-reported healthy days highlight the considerable and persistent gaps between the healthiest persons and states and the least healthy. However, awareness of the problem is insufficient for making changes. In the analytic essays that follow, certain specific actions, in the form of universally applied and targeted interventions, are recommended. A common theme among the different indicators presented in CHDIR 2011 is that universally applied interventions will seldom be sufficient to address the problems effectively. However, success stories among the indicators (i.e., the virtual elimination of disparities in certain vaccination rates among children) can be used to identify strategies for addressing remaining disparities.

CDC's role in addressing disparities will continue to include surveillance, analysis, and reporting through periodic CHDIRs. In addition, CDC has a key role in encouraging use of evidence-based strategies, supporting public health partners, and convening expert and public stakeholders to secure their commitment to take action.

The primary target audiences for CHDIR 2011 include practitioners in public health, academia and clinical medicine, the media, general public, policymakers, program managers, and researchers. CHDIR 2011 complements but does not duplicate the contents of the annual National Healthcare Disparities Report (12) and the periodic reports related to Healthy People 2010 (17).

CHDIR 2011 contains a limited collection of topics, each exploring selected indicators of critical U.S. health problems. Topics included in CHDIR 2011 were selected on the basis of one or more of the following criteria:...

...

population as defined by sex, racial/ethnicity, income or education, geography, and disability status; 2) social, demographic, and other disparities in health outcomes; 3) health outcomes for which effective and feasible interventions exist; and 4) availability of high-quality national-level data. For each of the topics and indicators, subject-matter experts used the most recent national data available to describe disparity measures (absolute or relative) by sex, race/ethnicity, family income (percentage of federal poverty level), educational attainment, disability status, and sexual orientation. Because of limits on data availability and optimal size of the report, certain topics of potential interest in the health disparities literature have been excluded. For example, disparities by country of birth and primary language spoken are not included in this report. Residential segregation, a social determinant of health, will be included in a future report when census tract level data from the 2010 U.S. Census become available in 2011. In each topic-specific analytic essay, the contributors describe disparities in social and health determinants among population groups. Each narrative and its tabular and graphic elements reveal the findings, their meaning, and implications for action if known.
The National Partnership for Action (NPA) to end health disparities is a national plan for eliminating health disparities affecting U.S. racial/ethnic minorities sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of Minority Health. One of NPA's five objectives is to ensure the availability of health data for all racial/ethnic minority populations. CHDIR 2011 will contribute to the achievement of that objective.

Measures of Health Inequality

Disparities are most often presented as a series of pair-wise comparisons: strata of a particular variable compared with a referent group. An index of disparity summarizes pair-wise comparisons into a single measure of disparity among a population (21). Health inequality - measured by using methods that originated in economics - provides summary measures that capture inequality in the overall distribution of health among persons or groups within a population.

A measure of health inequality can summarize in one number, instead of multiple pair-wise comparisons, the difference between individual persons or segments of a population with regard to a health outcome or related attribute by using all information available about the whole population instead of only the extremes of the distribution (22). Consistent estimates of health inequality at national, state, tribal, or local levels enable useful comparisons across indicators of health status and across time for each indicator; reveal targets for reducing inequality at multiple levels of geography; and compare inequality in the need for services with availability of services for different population segments. Thus, health indicators with lower inequality among the overall U.S. population but with higher inequality within certain groups require further exploration by focusing specifically on the determinants and potential remedies for the higher inequalities within population groups. If the data were available, the indicators in this report could be compared and ranked in terms of the degree of inequality among the U.S. population overall and within specific segments. To illustrate what might be possible with adequate data in future reports, three indicators of inequality are presented and compared by using the Gini index of inequality (23): 1) inequalities in income; 2) years of potential life lost (YPLL) before age 75 years; and 3) the Health and Activities Limitation Index (HALex), a measure of health-related quality-of-life (HRQL).

The Gini index, the most commonly used measure of income inequality, measures the extent to which the income distribution among a population deviates from theoretical income distribution in which each proportion of the population earns the same proportion of total income. The index varies from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater inequality (i.e., 0 indicates complete equality, and 1 indicates perfect inequality). The Gini index has been adapted to measure health inequality across populations by providing estimates that capture the distribution of health, or health risk, among the entire population or within specific groups. Researchers and policymakers recognize the importance of both individual- and group-level approaches in measuring health inequality because they capture different dimensions of health inequality that can complement one another to strengthen the overall assessment of population health (13,24,25).

Individual-Level Measures of Inequality

Income inequality. Income inequality in the United States (Gini index of 0.46 in 2007) is the highest among advanced industrialized economies (e.g., the combined Gini index for countries in the European Union and Russia is 0.31, ranging from the lowest score of 0.23 in Sweden to the highest for Russia at 0.41) (26,27), and demonstrates an increasing trend during 1997 -- 2007. During this period, the U.S. median…

Sources Used in Documents:

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2020. Phase I report: recommendations for the framework and format of Healthy People 2020. Rockville, MD: DHHS; 2008. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/hp2020/advisory/PhaseI/PhaseI.pdf" target="_blank" REL="NOFOLLOW" style="text-decoration: underline !important;">http://www.healthypeople.gov/hp2020/advisory/PhaseI/PhaseI.pdf .

2. Foege WH. The changing priorities of the Center for Disease Control. Public Health Rep 1978;93:616 -- 21.

3. Foege WH. Public health: moving from debt to legacy. Am J. Public Health 1987;77:1276 -- 8.

4. Giles WH. The U.S. perspective: lessons learned from the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) Program. JR Soc Med 2010;103:273 -- 6.
8. Asada Y. A summary measure of health inequalities for a pay-for-population health performance system. Prev Chronic Dis 2010;7:A72. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/jul/09_0250.htm.
12. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2009 national healthcare disparities report. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. AHRQ publication no. 10-0004. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09.htm.
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010. 2nd ed. With understanding and improving health and objectives for improving health. 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov.
15. CDC/National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Healthy people 2000 final review. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, NCHS; 2001. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hp2000/hp2k01.pdf .
17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Healthy people 2010: midcourse review. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2007. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/data/midcourse.
18. Hobbs F, Stoops N. Demographic trends in the 20th century. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2009. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf .
19. Bishaw A, Semega J. Income, earnings, and poverty data from the 2007 American Community Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/acs-09.pdf .
21. Keppel K, Pamuk E, Lynch J, et al. Methodological issues in measuring health disparities. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics; 2005. Vital Health Statistics Series 2, No. 141. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_141.pdf .
24. World Health Organization (WHO): The world health report 2000-health systems: improving performance. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2000. Available at http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en.
26. European Commission. Eurostat online database. Belgium: European Commission; 2010. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu.
27. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC. Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2009. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf .
32. Fryback DG. Measuring health-related quality of life. Presented at the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. The National Academies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Washington, DC, February 2010. Available at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/Common%20Metrics_Measuring_Health.pdf .
34. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General's call to action to improve the health and wellness of persons with disabilities. Washington, DC: DHHS, Office of the Surgeon General; 2005. Available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/disabilities/calltoaction/calltoaction.pdf .
35. World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2001. Available at http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en.
36. Altman B, Bernstein A. Disability and health in the United States, 2001 -- 2005. Hyattsville MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics; 2008. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/disability2001-2005.pdf .


Cite this Document:

"Disparities In Health Care" (2011, February 22) Retrieved April 26, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/disparities-in-health-care-121226

"Disparities In Health Care" 22 February 2011. Web.26 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/disparities-in-health-care-121226>

"Disparities In Health Care", 22 February 2011, Accessed.26 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/disparities-in-health-care-121226

Related Documents

Figure 1 portrays the state of Maryland, the location for the focus of this DRP. Figure 1: Map of Maryland, the State (Google Maps, 2009) 1.3 Study Structure Organization of the Study The following five chapters constitute the body of Chapter I: Introduction Chapter II: Review of the Literature Chapter III: Methods and Results Chapter IV: Chapter V: Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications Chapter I: Introduction During Chapter I, the researcher presents this study's focus, as it relates to the

Health Care Disparities Race Related Healthcare disparities Serial number Socioeconomic status and health Correlation between socioeconomic status and race Health insurance and health Who are the uninsured people? Causes of health care disparities Suggestions for better health care system The latest studies have shown that in spite of the steady developments in the overall health of the United States, racial and ethnic minorities still experience an inferior quality of health services and are less likely to receive routine medical

Healthcare Reform Revised
PAGES 7 WORDS 2111

Healthcare Reform Revised We know that the burden of diseases is increasing all over the world. The percentage of people suffering from diabetes, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases has considerably increased in the last decade. It is noteworthy here that the importance of preventive care now comes at par with the importance of curative care. Considering the prevalence of diseases and the health status of the American population, President Obama introduced a

Healthcare Policy Systems: Hong Kong, Australia VOUCHERS FOR THE ELDERLY Healthcare Policy Systems in Hong Kong and Australia Primary Health Care for the Elderly in Hong Kong Primary care is the starting point in the healthcare process (PCO, 2011). A good one is made available to the public for a comprehensive, holistic, coordinated and in locations accessible to where people live or work. It also provides preventive care and optimal disease management. In Hong

Health Care Economics Medical Care is never free, although the individual may pay nothing? Medical Care is both a commodity and a service. The process of consuming medical care has a cost, even if the after insurance price is zero to the consumer. For instance, there are hard costs that include the buildings, equipment and supplies that house the medical care or office. There are the wages that are paid for the

Healthcare Administration and Leadership Health care in the United States has progressed and improved to the point at which providers in all health care settings have defined and developed at least 4 major areas of importance for effective health care. Knowledgeable health care leaders have identified Quality and Safety; Community Health; Health Care Access and Coverage; and Leadership and Governance as key areas that must be constantly addressed and improved to