Search

Many studies have reported large variations in age- and sex-adjusted rates of hospitalizations across small geographic areas. These variations have often been attributed to differences in medical practice style which are not reflected in differences in health care outcomes. There is, however, another potentially important source of variation that has not been examined much in the literature: geographic differences in the age–sex adjusted size of the pool of patients who present with the disease and are candidates for hospitalization. Previous studies of small area variations in hospitalization rates have only used data on hospitalizations. Thus, it has not been possible to distinguish the extent to which differences in hospitalization rates are due to (i) differences in the chance that patients diagnosed with a disease are admitted to a hospital, which we refer to as the ‘practice style effect,’ versus (ii) geographic differences in the total amount of diagnosed disease, which we refer to as the ‘disease effect.’ Elementary methods for estimating the relative strength of the two effects directly from the data can be misleading, since equal amounts of variability in each effect result in unequal impacts on hospitalization rates. In this paper we describe a model-based approach for estimating the relative importance of the practice style effect and the disease effect in explaining variations in hospitalization rates. The key to our approach is the use of data on both inpatient and outpatient visits. We use 1997 Medicare data for two respiratory medical conditions across 71 small areas in Massachusetts: chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and bacterial pneumonia. Based on a Poisson model for the process generating hospitalizations and outpatient visits, we use a Bayesian framework and Gibbs sampling to compute and compare the correlation between the number of people hospitalized and each of these two sources of variation. Our results show that for the two conditions, disease rate variation explains at least as much of the variation in hospitalization rates as does practice style variation. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pandemic-related disruptions in access to medical care services, along with elevated rates of comorbidity, increase the risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 for people with disabilities. Analyzing data from the 2020 National Health Interview Survey, we examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults' access to medical care services by presence and type of disability. Adults with disabilities, including in each disability category, experienced significant disparities in delayed and unmet need for medical care during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Improving data collection on disabled Americans according to disability status and type of disability, designating people with disabilities as a Special Medically Underserved Population under the Public Health Services Act, and incorporating standardized disability data in electronic health record systems would inform policies, programs, and interventions to achieve equitable access to high-quality medical care services that meet the needs of all people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

For almost fifty years, federal civil rights laws such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and Section 1557 and other provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have prohibited discrimination against Americans with disabilities, including in health care. Despite these laws, disabled Americans continue to experience disparities in health and health care, from preventive care to home and community-based services. In its 2022 Health Equity Framework for People with Disabilities, the National Council on Disability highlighted some of these disparities and recommended remedies. To explore these concerns, this article examines disability inequities and potential solutions within six areas. It concludes by recommending the ratification of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to reinvigorate US efforts to maximize the health and dignity of disabled Americans and support their full participation in the community.

More than thirty years since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), people with disability continue to experience health care disparities. The ADA mandates that patients with disability receive reasonable accommodations. In our survey of 714 US physicians in outpatient practices, 35.8 percent reported knowing little or nothing about their legal responsibilities under the ADA, 71.2 percent answered incorrectly about who determines reasonable accommodations, 20.5 percent did not correctly identify who pays for these accommodations, and 68.4 felt that they were at risk for ADA lawsuits. Physicians who felt that lack of formal education or training was a moderate or large barrier to caring for patients with disability were more likely to report little or no knowledge of their responsibilities under the law and were more likely to believe that they were at risk for an ADA lawsuit. To achieve equitable care and social justice for patients with disability, considerable improvements are needed to educate physicians and make health care delivery systems more accessible and accommodating.

More than sixty-one million Americans have disabilities, and increasing evidence documents that they experience health care disparities. Although many factors likely contribute to these disparities, one little-studied but potential cause involves physicians' perceptions of people with disability. In our survey of 714 practicing US physicians nationwide, 82.4 percent reported that people with significant disability have worse quality of life than nondisabled people. Only 40.7 percent of physicians were very confident about their ability to provide the same quality of care to patients with disability, just 56.5 percent strongly agreed that they welcomed patients with disability into their practices, and 18.1 percent strongly agreed that the health care system often treats these patients unfairly. More than thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted, these findings about physicians' perceptions of this population raise questions about ensuring equitable care to people with disability. Potentially biased views among physicians could contribute to persistent health care disparities affecting people with disability.

A person with primary progressive multiple sclerosis manages a complex scheme of personal assistance services to remain living at home.

Americans generally want to remain in their homes even if they develop chronic health problems or disabilities that qualify them for nursing home care. While family members or friends provide the preponderance of home-based support, millions of Americans use paid personal assistance services (PAS). Inexorable demographic trends are increasing the numbers of people who need paid home-based PAS, with this need rapidly outstripping the capacity of the paid PAS workforce. While many factors contribute to this widening discrepancy, its roots reach back more than eighty years to asynchrony among various policies affecting home-based supports for people with functional impairments and policies affecting home-based PAS workers. Finding solutions to the growing gap between demand for the services and the PAS workforce requires policies that cut across societal sectors and align incentives for consumers, workers, and other key stakeholders.

Disability civil rights laws require equitable treatment of the approximately sixty-one million Americans with disability. However, federal reports and numerous research studies indicate that this diverse and growing population often experiences health care disparities. To examine one possible contributing factor, we interviewed practicing physicians to explore their knowledge of their obligations to accommodate patients with disability under federal civil rights law. Interviewees reported having had little formal training about, and demonstrated superficial or incorrect understanding of, their obligations in three potentially problematic areas: deciding which accommodations their practices should implement, refusing patients with disability, and holding patients accountable for costs of accommodations. The fact that practicing physicians might not fully understand their legal responsibilities when caring for people with disability may contribute to persisting inequity in their care, and it suggests that further education in the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability civil rights laws may be warranted.