Introduction:

H. Jack Geiger (2004) professor emeritus of Community Medicine at City
University of New York Medical school notes: “my colleagues and I have
reviewed a thousand peer reviewed articles…(that documented)
inequalities in health care for African –Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and Asians…evidence is overwhelming.” He noted that:
• Black – White lung cancer (with same insurance) White will receive surgery
• Hispanic trauma patient not likely to receive pain medication
• Native American with diabetes…all too often experience disparities in treatment.

There are now 8 major reviews of patient inequalities. This includes
Institutes of Medicine’s UNEQUAL TREATMENT (2001.)

Organizational Support:

Numerous groups now support equal treatment of patients. The agencies,
voluntary associations and related included Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, Institutes of Medicine, National Institute of Health, and Physicians for Human Rights.

However, the Health and Human Services (the premiere federal health
coordinator) according to Geiger (papered over) the findings.

Internet Documentation:

This is not the complete story. More can be found on the Internet under
PATIENT INEQUALITIES, MEDICAL INEQUALITIES, and PATIENT DUMPING.

Literature Review:

On the other hand, poor and minorities can be under treated or not
properly treated when there is a miscommunication between patient and medical personnel due to class and subculture.

Additionally, patients may wait too long for treatment and thus have
poor outcomes.

Some may be involved in toxic lifestyles that could be self-selected or
self-imposed. Others may not take the medication, or not take the medication at proper times and dosage.

However, there still is a significant gap between classes and
ethnic/races relative to infant mortality, life expectancy, mental illness, morbidity, stress, and the use of health services(Weis, Lonnquist, 2003.)

Anecdotal Observation:

One of the authors worked in a setting in the southwest. New medical
doctors and residents were informed by administration that poor minorities with minor angina were to be told to go home and take aspirin and rest. In common parlance, those poor and minority patients with angina and related were to not be treated. By informing the patient and relatives to take the over the counter medication off site, the health center was free of liability. Other patients were treated differently and dramatically better with state of the art intervention. New studies in terms of the use of 80 mg. of Lipitor would suggest that treatment would be superior and helpful in terms of poor minorities’ health (Jennings,2004.).

The observations made by one of the authors were inadvertent and
serendipitous. Some of it was second hand. The person’s original goal
was to study the values, lifestyle of a certain category, social class, and race of a non-indigenous population. The death of the person would also confound medical and demographic statistics. Most were placed under the rubric of “death by natural causes.” In other times and places, that would essentially be valid.

Conclusion:

It would appear that there is a continuous discontinuity in treatment
between poor and minorities and other patients. An anecdotal
observation also appears to support the preceding statement.

References:

Geiger, H. Jack (2004:2/2) Why is a critical health-care gap being
obscured? The Gazette, 4a.
Jennings, Peter (2004:3/8) ABC News (5:30 news CST)
Weiss, G.L. and Lonnquist, L. E. The Sociology of Health , Healing, and
Illness (4th edition) New Jersey: Prentice Hall