Healthcare Disparities in the U.S.:

Healthcare Disparities in the U.S.: Causes, Discussion and Possible Solutions

At the core of the disparity argument lies the fact that through equalization of access to healthcare and quality of care, more lives can be saved than by focusing on development of new technologies that often sharply increase healthcare costs and only benefit those who can afford these treatments or insurance itself (Woolf, et. al., 2008). During a ten-year period, one study contrasted the equality of care between Whites and African-Americans with the application of new technologies. The results of the study are shocking, even disturbing from a healthcare professional's perspective, given that the ultimate goal of healthcare is to reduce mortality rates and increase the quality of life for the patient.

The study found that, "The U.S. health system spends far more on the "technology" of care (e.g., drugs, devices) than on achieving equity in its delivery. For 1991 to 2000, we contrasted the number of lives saved by medical advances with the number of deaths attributable to excess mortality among African-Americans. Medical advances averted 176,633 deaths, but equalizing the mortality rates of Whites and African-Americans would have averted 886,202 deaths. Achieving equity may do more for health than perfecting the technology of care." (Woolf, et. al., 2008)

This powerful statistic proves that the diminishing returns of new technology development are outweighed by the huge returns that are possible in reduction of mortality among specific ethnic groups. It is made even more shocking when coupled with the fact that African-Americans, as a group, have much higher rates of access to care and enjoy more healthcare access and quality equality than other groups within the U.S. In other words, this statistic is, in actuality, far more dramatic when comparing Whites to other ethnic groups, particularly non-Mexican Latinos (Bustamante, et. al., 2009).

There are plenty of disparities within the U.S. healthcare system. Many of them stem from differing access to healthcare products and services while others stem from socio-economic influences and even racial differences. The trend in the statistics shows that people's health is directly related to the amount of wealth and education they posses and attain, indicating that poorer people are less healthy as a whole (Braveman, et. al., 2010). Also, many studies have shown that there are racial indicators present among healthcare disparities in the U.S. The U.S. political and healthcare frameworks should be retooled to help close the gap in the U.S. healthcare disparity between rich and poor people, paying special attention to people of certain ethnicities who suffer from abnormally high rates of certain health issues. This needs to be funded by all Americans to guarantee that no socioeconomic or ethnic population lies with a disadvantage.

Due to the fact that many people do not have access to healthcare or health insurance, and the majority of these people fall into a few select ethnic and socioeconomic groups, it is vital that all Americans help to eliminate the inequalities in the healthcare sector to help rebuild the nation's economy. In the mid to long-term, subsidizing or providing healthcare and insurance to the poorest Americans benefits all Americans (Braveman, et. al., 2010). Also, as access to proper healthcare services becomes more and more limited, chronic illnesses and diseases become more prevalent, affecting more and more of the American population. This is a social crisis that must be dealt with in order to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed as Americans. Focusing on equality of access and care will ultimately save far more lives than focusing on development of new technologies within the healthcare realm.

Many people do not feel it is society's responsibility to provide help to those in need relative to healthcare. Also, many feel that closing the gap between the healthcare of the very rich and the very poor is not a public policy issue. These counterclaims are based upon sound logic, but they do not take into consideration the sheer cost of the poorer, often uninsured people's healthcare and the amount of money that everyone already pays to help these populations receive even basic emergency care (Bustamante, et. al., 2009). At the surface, it may seem as though it would be very expensive to give little or no cost help to those without insurance or who are poor.

This argument makes sense if viewed in the very short-term, and from an individual standpoint. However the cost of healthcare for everyone is rising each year, regardless of the gains or losses in the quality of care. This means that those who are not able to pay for basic preventative healthcare and maintenance are forced to seek the help of a doctor or nurse only after their health has deteriorated to the point of needing to be admitted to he emergency room (Bustamante, et. al., 2009). In the long run, it is far less expensive to help subsidize basic healthcare for all than it is to pay for these people's care through higher insurance premiums or higher cost care.

Another counterpoint that often comes up is the idea that it is not the wealthy peoples' responsibility to help others receive healthcare. When breaking down this argument, it is important to remember that for a wealthy person, the extra cost of insurance or critical care is a relatively low portion of their income or net worth, perhaps only a few percent or less. But for a person who is making minimum wage or less and who is unable to afford insurance, that same care costs them a far larger proportion of their income or wealth, and sometimes exceeds their yearly gross income (Braveman, et. al., 2010). This is one of the reasons why rising healthcare and health insurance costs affect the poor so much more than they affect the wealthy. The unequal distribution of cost as a proportion of their cost of living makes it impossible for many to afford even basic healthcare and insurance.

By helping to eliminate the disparities between income groups within the healthcare system, all income groups, or all people benefit. This is to say that by helping to close the gaps, America, as a nation is stronger. The economy will benefit from a healthy and strong workforce, and as it is currently weighed down by recession, the rising cost of healthcare and insurance is increasing the mid to long-term cost of these services for even the wealthiest Americans. Politically, this is could be a hot button issue because if a candidate or administration can help reduce the cost of basic healthcare, even through government subsidization, it will ultimately help the economy in the mid to long run (Bodenheimer, Chen, and Bennett, 2009). To many, this argument is counter-intuitive, but equality in access and care will ultimately help mitigate healthcare costs for everyone, including the U.S. government and providers themselves.

Also, as more people are inclined to miss work or become legally disabled, the amount of economic output decreases as does the efficiency and productivity of American workers on average. This affects everyone, and drives up the cost of other goods and services. Over 133 million Americans identify as sufferers of chronic illnesses or diseases (Bodenheimer, Chen, and Bennett, 2009). These health issues are best dealt with through preventative care and maintenance that can be provided at very little cost (Bodenheimer, Chen, and Bennett, 2009). When these people do not have access to healthcare, they are forced to seek only emergency care when their conditions become unbearable or even potentially fatal. These and other directly related emergency care costs are passed on to all other Americans.

Children deserve the very best healthcare in America, regardless of their race or socioeconomic background. But sadly many children do not have access to basic healthcare. Just as improved access for all helps everyone, improved access for children and parents of small children helps not only the social fabric of the nation, but the economy. Many life-long illnesses and diseases start in childhood, and, even so, many are preventable. In this instance, it is morally wrong to prevent or limit children from receiving adequate healthcare and access to preventative maintenance measures.

According to the statistics, most uninsured Americans are non-white, and most children without access to healthcare come from very specific racial backgrounds including 21% of Latinos and 15% of Native Americans. Only 6% of whites were uninsured or did not have adequate access to healthcare (Flores and Tomany-Korman, 2008). This means that concentrating on specific ethnic populations and helping them to both afford and understand how basic healthcare can help them in a life-long sense is vitally important in helping to cut down the disparities between ethnicities relative to access to healthcare and health insurance.

There exist both observed and unobserved healthcare disparities among people in the U.S. (Bustamante, et. al., 2009). Understanding the difference helps to illustrate the fact that much of what people aren't seeing in the statistics is actually costing them money in the long run (Bustamante, et. al., 2009). This is to say that the statistics or studies that demonstrate that there are racial and socioeconomic disparities within the U.S. healthcare structure do not include the unobserved disparities. This may sound very rudimentary, even silly to point out, but in by understanding that the numbers are actually worse than they appear, and that the rising costs of healthcare services re associated with both what we see and can't see, it is easier to understand how costs rise so quickly.