Minority Access to Health Services Research Paper

Sample Minority Access to Health Services Research Paper. Browse other  research paper examples and check the list of research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our research paper writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Ethnic minority populations comprise large segments of the US population and are growing especially rapidly. Their use of healthcare services is relatively low. Certain factors accounting for racial and ethnic disparities are well understood but others remain to be determined. Identifying and overcoming barriers to healthcare is important to insure an equitable distribution of healthcare related resources in order to promote equal well-being in all sectors of the population. Problems in minority access to healthcare are evident in other developed countries as well, though not as pervasively as in the United States.

1. Ethnic Minority Populations: Size, Growth, and Risk

Black Americans make up at least 12.5 percent of the United States population, not allowing for a probable census undercount (O’Hare et al. 1991). The black population is relatively young and represented only about 8 percent of the 65 and over population in 1995, because of a persistently higher mortality rate that reverses only in very old age (‘crossover effect’).

Persons of Hispanic heritage made up about 11 percent of the United States population in 1996 (del Pinal and Singer 1997). The Hispanic population consists of a number of diverse groups, including Cuban Americans, Puerto Ricans, persons from Central and South American countries, and, by far the largest group, comprising almost two-thirds of the Hispanic population, Mexican Americans. The Hispanic population is growing especially rapidly due to immigration and differential birth rates and a high proportion of children and youth. According to current projections (del Pinal and Singer 1997), Hispanics by 2050 will comprise about 24 percent of the United States population.

In 1997 about 4 percent of the US population was Asian American (Lee 1998), up from 3 percent in 1990 and 2 percent in 1980. Asian Americans make up about 2 percent of persons 65 years and older, and are projected to make up 7 percent in 2050 (Treas 1995). The increase reflects a shift in immigration policy in 1965 toward the elimination of national quotas, and the arrival of successive waves of refugees from the Vietnam war (Lee 1998). American Indians and Alaska Natives are made up of more than 550 tribes recognized by the federal government and Alaska Native Villages, the largest of which are the Navajo and Cherokee. In 1990 there were almost 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives, more than twice as many as were counted in the mid-1970s (Norton in press). They comprise about 0.4 percent of persons 65 years of age and older and are expected to increase to a proportion of 0.6 percent by 2050 (Treas

1995).

2. Socioeconomic Distress

Among the most important differences between racial and ethnic groups are those in education, occupational status, and income—that is, in socioeconomic standing (Krieger et al. 1997). Poverty is especially influential. Over a number of years, African and Native American families have been roughly three times as likely as white families to have incomes placing them below the federally established poverty line. The disparity is even greater when considering extreme poverty—family incomes at a level less than half of the poverty threshold—and is also large when considering children and the elderly. The effects of poverty are compounded by differences in total value of accumulated assets, or total wealth (O’Hare et al. 1991). Many minority poor live among other people who are poor in areas in which such individuals and families are found in high concentrations. The neighborhoods tend to be distressed, marked by high rates of unemployment, homelessness, crime, and substance abuse, with few local resources to help offset these problems (Wilson 1987).

3. Access to Healthcare and Health Services

Minority access to and patterns of receiving healthcare are problematic. Levels and occasions of use have been best documented among African Americans.

Despite relatively poor health status and higher rates of illness and mortality, African Americans make fewer visits for ambulatory care than whites. Moreover, their visits are considerably more likely than those of whites to be made to hospital outpatient and emergency departments than to physicians’ offices (National Center for Health Statistics 1996).

Excess emergency treatment of minorities appears to be more selective in other developed countries than in the United States. Investigators studying the West Midlands in the United Kingdom (Gilthorpe et al. 1998), for example, found that Black children and older Indian and Bangladeshi men and women were more likely than Whites to be admitted to hospital on an emergency basis with asthma-related suffering. The difference occurred despite a lack of evidence indicating underlying racial and ethnic differences in the prevalence of asthma. Disproportionate emergency care is not pervasive, however.

Latinos and Asian Americans enjoy better health status when considering indicators of morbidity and mortality, although on overall ratings of health status, Latinos were more likely to indicate ‘fair poor’ health and less likely to indicate ‘excellent’ health. African Americans in the study closely resembled Latinos in pattern of perceived health status (Weigers and Drilea 1996). Despite considering themselves less healthy than Whites, however, Latinos and African Americans have proven less likely to make use of ambulatory medical care (National Center for Health Statistics 1996).

Most groups receive healthcare not only at relatively low levels but also in less than optimal ways. Problems are especially evident in receiving routine and preventive care. When pregnant, women from almost all minority groups are less likely than whites to receive prenatal care during the first trimester (National Center for Health Statistics 1996).

Racial and ethnic disparities such as these are less common in other developed countries than in the United States. A study conducted in Amsterdam (Reijneveld 1998) found that in keeping with relatively poor health, immigrants from Turkey and Morocco made relatively heavy use of primary care and other health services. Thus, the pattern of minority–white differences is opposite that found in the United States. In another study, researchers investigating birth records from three hospitals in East London (Collins et al. 1997) compared the pregnancies of African, West Indian, and European White women. West Indian and African women were more likely than European White women to have delivered low birthweight infants, but they had not received less prenatal care.

Related to these problems is the lack for many minorities in the United States of a continuing, single point of access—a usual source of healthcare. In 1996, 76.3 percent of whites had an office-based usual source of care, whereas only 63.6 percent of African Americans and 57.9 percent of Latinos had a comparable usual source. The disparities are greater still when considering children under age 18.

4. Factors Affecting Minority Access

To a notable extent, problems in access can be attributed to a lack of health insurance coverage. African Americans and Latinos are notably less likely than others to have health insurance. Disparities are found both among males and females and are greatest among children and young adults (National Center for Health Statistics 1996).

Because in the United States health insurance often is provided as a benefit of employment, differences between racial and ethnic groups in insurance coverage are tied to differences in patterns of labor force participation. Minority persons are more likely to be unemployed and, if employed, to work in jobs that fail to provide health insurance. The problem is particularly acute among Hispanic males, only 49.7 percent of whom had job-related healthcare coverage in 1996.

Differences in rates of insurance coverage would be greater still but for widespread availability and use of publicly-supported insurance programs, especially Medicaid. Medicaid is a federal-state program supporting healthcare to the poor. In keeping with their higher rates of poverty, minorities are more likely than whites to be covered by Medicaid; blacks and Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites to be covered (Banthin and Cohen 1999). Medicaid benefits vary from state to state and in some areas they provide only minimal coverage.

Also, many private office-based healthcare providers do not accept Medicaid as a source of payment and are unavailable to minority and other low-income patients. Moreover, minorities are over-represented in many inner city and rural areas in which office-based medical providers are found less often than in other areas perceived to be more hospitable (Perloff et al. 1997). In this manner, geography and financing help to dictate minority under-representation in office-based practice as a usual source of care.

Minority beliefs and attitudes toward illness and toward seeking healthcare have been proposed as another explanation for minority–white differences in healthcare. Conceivably, some minority communities believe that healthcare is less desirable or necessary than whites do, or exhibit a greater preference for religious or holistic alternatives to scientific medicine. Put another way, competing ‘explanatory models’ (Kleinman 1978) of health and illness might lead minority group members away from mainstream healthcare providers and toward alternative sources of help. However, Snowden et al. (1997) found that blacks and whites differed on few attitudes toward the importance of insurance coverage and use of healthcare, and that the attitude differences failed to explain substantial differences in receiving outpatient medical care, although the study did not touch on possible underlying differences in how symptoms of illness are recognized and interpreted in the first place.

The attitudes of healthcare providers and their sensitivity to ethnic and cultural differences have been invoked to explain differences in healthcare. Critics have stressed the existence of mistrust and a lack of comprehension on the part of some healthcare providers to beliefs, behavior patterns, and linguistic patterns prevalent in many minority communities and the mutual alienation of patients and providers which can result (e.g., Kavanagh and Kennedy 1992). They have called for a ‘culturally competent’ healthcare practice which would seek to overcome social distance as a barrier.

Unlike members of other minority groups, many Native Americans are eligible for a government-sponsored system of healthcare earmarked for their use. The Indian Health Service (HIS) and Urban Indian Health Programs offer various forms of healthcare, although the greater part of the effort is directed toward primary care. In recent years the budgetary limitations have caused the HIS to curtail its offerings (Manson 1998). In moving toward self-determination, many tribes have assumed direct control of local programs, including those providing healthcare. We know little about levels and types of care provided under any of these arrangements (Manson 1998).

5. Future Directions

Although the role of financing as a barrier to equal provision of healthcare is well established, the situation demands a nuanced and comprehensive understanding. Puzzles remain. When asked whether they had experienced any difficulty or delay in obtaining healthcare, more Hispanics than whites indicated the existence of such a problem, but fewer African Americans so indicated (Weinick et al. 1997). Among persons experiencing a problem, many more Hispanics than whites reported an inability to afford care, but only slightly more African Americans so indicated. Other concerns, including location and receptivity of providers, and knowledge and willingness to seek care of patients, must be taken into account.

There is also a need for greater understanding of exactly which members of ethnic minority populations are unlikely to seek healthcare. Greater reluctance to use the health care system might be linked not only to socioeconomic standing, but also to factors such as country of birth and language preference—many minorities are immigrants and refugees—as well as adherence to traditional cultural beliefs and practices.

More effort should be made to learn from international comparisons. The experience of minorities in the United States appears to differ from that of minorities in other developed countries. Explanations should be sought by pinpointing key differences in the structure of national and local healthcare delivery systems. All such considerations and approaches should be employed to provide a comprehensive explanation.

Bibliography:

1. Banthin J S, Cohen J W 1999 Changes in the Medicaid Community Population: 1987–96 MEPS Research Findings No. 9. AHCPR Pub. No. 99-0042. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD
2. Collins J W, Derrick M, Hilder L, Kempley S 1997 Relation of maternal ethnicity to infant birthweight in east London, England. Ethnicity and Disease 7(Winter): 1–4 del Pinal J, Singer A 1997 Generations of diversity: Latinos in the United States. Population Bulletin 52: 1–44
3. Gilthorpe M S, Lay-Yee R, Wilson R C, Walters S, Griffiths R K, Bedi R 1998 Variations in hospitalization rates for asthma among black and minority communities. Respiratory Medicine 92: 642–8
4. Kavanagh K H, Kennedy P H 1992 Promoting Cultural Di ersity: Strategies for Health Care Professionals. Sage, London
5. Kleinman A 1978 Clinical relevance of anthropological and cross-cultural research: Concepts and strategies. American Journal of Psychiatry 135: 427–31
6. Krieger N, Williams D R, Moss N E 1997 Measuring social class in US public health research: Concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annual Re iew of Public Health 18: 341–78
7. Lee S M 1998 Asian Americans: Diverse and growing. Population Bulletin 53: 1–39
8. Manson S M 1998 Mental health services for American Indians: Need, use, and barriers to effective care. Manuscript under review, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
9. National Center for Health Statistics 1996 Health, United States, 1995. Public Health Service, Hyattsville, MD
10. Norton I M in press American Indians and mental health: Issues in psychiatric assessment and diagnosis. In: Herrera J M, Lawson W B, Sramek J J (eds.) Cross Cultural Psychiatry. Wiley, Chichester, UK
11. O’Hare W P, Pollard K M, Mann T L, Kent M M 1991 African Americans in the 1990s. Population Bulletin 46: 1–40
12. Perloff J D, Kletke P R, Fossett J W, Banks S 1997 Medicaid participation among urban primary care physicians. Medical Care 35(2): 142–57
13. Reijneveld S A 1998 Reported heatlh, lifestyles, and use of health care of first generation immigrants in The Netherlands: Do socioeconomic factors explain their adverse position? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 52: 298–304
14. Snowden L R, Libby A, Thomas K 1997 Health-care-related attitudes and utilization among African American women. Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Beha ior, and Policy 3: 301–14
15. Treas J 1995 Older Americans in the 1990s and beyond. Population Bulletin 50: 1–46
16. Weigers M E, Drilea S K 1996 Health Status and Limitations: A Comparison of Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites MEPS Research Findings No. 10. AHCPR Pub. No. 00-0001. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD
17. Weinick R M, Zuvekas S H, Drilea S K 1997 Access to Health Care—Sources and Barriers. MEPS Research Findings No. 3. AHCPR Pub. No. 98-0001. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD
18. Wilson W J 1987 The Truly Disad antaged: The Inner City, The Underclass, and Public Policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago