Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVE: To summarize findings from this Special Issue, which examine reported experiences of discrimination among six underrepresented groups in public opinion research—blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) adults, and women. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY DESIGN: Data come from a nationally representative, probability‐based telephone survey of 3453 US adults, conducted January—April 2017. METHODS: We calculated the percent of adults reporting discrimination in several domains, including health care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In health care encounters, 32 percent of black adults reported discrimination, as did 23 percent of Native Americans, 20 percent of Latinos, 18 percent of women, 16 percent of LGBTQ adults, and 13 percent of Asian Americans. Significant shares also reported experiencing racial, gender, or LGBTQ identity‐based violence against themselves or family members, including 51 percent of LGBTQ adults, 42 percent of blacks, 38 percent of Native Americans, and 21 percent of women. At least one in seven blacks (22 percent), LGBTQ adults (18 percent), Latinos (17 percent), and Native Americans (15 percent) reported avoiding health care for themselves or family members over concerns of anticipated discrimination or unfair treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, this polling effort illustrates the significant and widespread level of discrimination against many groups in America today, as well as the complex manifestation of these experiences across different groups and different areas of life. While it is beyond the scope of these results to make specific recommendations for how to end discrimination in each area of life we studied, this Special Issue provides important evidence that more research and practice on discrimination are sorely needed in health services research.

The November 2014 midterm election was the first election since key coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were implemented, including the Medicaid expansion and creation of the health insurance exchanges. The pre-election variability in the states' implementation of these provisions coupled with the large number of states selecting their next governor made the election important at the state level. To better understand the role of health care in the recent gubernatorial elections, we analyzed health policy content presented by 71 candidates for governor on their campaign Web sites. Nearly 80% of all candidates discussed health policy on their Web site, including the subset of the 36 winning governors. The predominant focus of health policy content was on the ACA as a whole or its provisions. Medicaid was discussed more often by candidates in non-expansion states than those from expansion states. Based on the statements of winning governors, we expect serious consideration of the Medicaid expansion to occur in at least 4 states, whereas 2 states may make efforts to reverse course. Relatively few winning governors (33%) mentioned the exchanges. Only 1 expressed interest in switching from the federal exchange to a state exchange, which has particular relevance given the Supreme Court's pending decision on King v. Burwell that could invalidate tax credits on the federal exchange. The prominence of health care in the gubernatorial campaigns strengthens the likelihood that governors will play an influential role in the health system's future, especially as the ACA undergoes further federal debate.