Health Equity for Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

This Viewpoint discusses 3 types of systemic health inequity experienced by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities­stigma, exclusion, and devaluation of worth; underrepresentation in population epidemiology and research; and inadequate access to care and social services­and suggests potential approaches to ameliorating inequities in each of these areas.

Approaching the COVID-19 Pandemic Response With a Health Equity Lens: A Framework for Academic Health Systems.

Racially and ethnically diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have historically been disproportionately affected by disasters and public health emergencies in the United States. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health established the National Consensus Panel on Emergency Preparedness and Cultural Diversity to provide guidance to agencies and organizations on developing effective strategies to advance emergency preparedness and eliminate disparities among racially and ethnically diverse communities during these crises. Adopting the National Consensus Panel recommendations, the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Health Equity; Language Services; and academic-community partnerships used existing health equity resources and expertise to develop an operational framework to support the organization's COVID-19 response and to provide a framework of health equity initiatives for other academic medical centers. This operational framework addressed policies to support health equity patient care and clinical operations, accessible COVID-19 communication, and staff and community support and engagement, which also supported the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care. Johns Hopkins Medicine identified expanded recommendations for addressing institutional policy making and capacity building, including unconscious bias training for resource allocation teams and staff training in accurate race, ethnicity, and language data collection, that should be considered in future updates to the National Consensus Panel's recommendations.

Building Equitable Patient Partnerships during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Key Considerations for Research and Policy.

The unequal social and economic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic is evident in racialized and low-income communities across Canada. Importantly, social inequities have not been adequately addressed and current public policies are not reflective of the needs of diverse populations. Public participation in decision-making is crucial and there is, therefore, a pressing need to increase diversity of representation in patient partnerships in order to prevent the further exclusion of socially marginalized groups from research and policy making. Deliberate effort and affirmative action are needed to meaningfully engage and nurture diverse patient partnerships by broadening the scope of the patient community to include excluded or underrepresented individuals or groups. This will help us co-develop ways to enhance access and equity in healthcare and prevent the systematic reproduction of structural inequalities that have already been heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Incorporating Health Equity Into COVID-19 Reopening Plans: Policy Experimentation in California.

California has focused on health equity in the state's COVID-19 reopening plan. The Blueprint for a Safer Economy assigns each of California's 58 counties into 1 of 4 tiers based on 2 metrics: test positivity rate and adjusted case rate. To advance to the next less-restrictive tier, counties must meet that tier's test positivity and adjusted case rate thresholds. In addition, counties must have a plan for targeted investments within disadvantaged communities, and counties with more than 106 000 residents must meet an equity metric. California's explicit incorporation of health equity into its reopening plan underscores the interrelated fate of its residents during the COVID-19 pandemic and creates incentives for action. This article evaluates the benefits and challenges of this novel health equity focus, and outlines recommendations for other US states to address disparities in their reopening plans.

Mainstreaming of Health Equity in Infectious Disease Control Policy During the COVID-19 Pandemic Era.

The Korean government's strategy to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has focused on non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing and wearing masks, along with testing, tracing, and treatment; overall, its performance has been relatively good compared to that of many other countries heavily affected by COVID-19. However, little attention has been paid to health equity in measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to examine the unequal impacts of COVID-19 across socioeconomic groups and to suggest potential solutions to tackle these inequalities. The pathways linking social determinants and health could be entry points to tackle the unequal consequences of this public health emergency. It is crucial for infectious disease policy to consider social determinants of health including poor housing, precarious working conditions, disrupted healthcare services, and suspension of social services. Moreover, the high levels of uncertainty and complexity inherent in this public health emergency, as well as the health and socioeconomic inequalities caused by the pandemic, underscore the need for good governance other than top-down measures by the government. We emphasize that a people-centered perspective is a key approach during the pandemic era. Mutual trust between the state and civil society, strong accountability of the government, and civic participation are essential components of cooperative disaster governance.

Rapid Transition to Telehealth and the Digital Divide: Implications for Primary Care Access and Equity in a Post-COVID Era.

Policy Points Telehealth has many potential advantages during an infectious disease outbreak such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to telehealth as a prominent care delivery mode. Not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in the telehealth revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Without proactive efforts to address both patient- and provider-related digital barriers associated with socioeconomic status, the wide-scale implementation of telehealth amid COVID-19 may reinforce disparities in health access in already marginalized and underserved communities. To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them. CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed fundamental shifts across the US health care delivery system, including a rapid transition to telehealth. Telehealth has many potential advantages, including maintaining critical access to care while keeping both patients and providers safe from unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus. However, not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in this digital revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The study analyzed data about small primary care practices' telehealth use and barriers to telehealth use collected from rapid-response surveys administered by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Bureau of Equitable Health Systems and New York University from mid-April through mid-June 2020 as part of the city's efforts to understand how primary care practices were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic following New York State's stay-at-home order on March 22. We focused on small primary care practices because they represent 40% of primary care providers and are disproportionately located in low-income, minority or immigrant areas that were more severely impacted by COVID-19. To examine whether telehealth use and barriers differed based on the socioeconomic characteristics of the communities served by these practices, we used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to stratify respondents as being in high-SVI or low-SVI areas. We then characterized respondents' telehealth use and barriers to adoption by using means and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. In addition to a primary analysis using pooled data across the five waves of the survey, we performed sensitivity analyses using data from respondents who only took one survey, first wave only, and the last two waves only. FINDINGS: While all providers rapidly shifted to telehealth, there were differences based on community characteristics in both the primary mode of telehealth used and the types of barriers experienced by providers. Providers in high-SVI areas were almost twice as likely as providers in low-SVI areas to use telephones as their primary telehealth modality (41.7% vs 23.8%; P <.001). The opposite was true for video, which was used as the primary telehealth modality by 18.7% of providers in high-SVI areas and 33.7% of providers in low-SVI areas (P <0.001). Providers in high-SVI areas also faced more patient-related barriers and fewer provider-related barriers than those in low-SVI areas. CONCLUSIONS: Between April and June 2020, telehealth became a prominent mode of primary care delivery in New York City. However, the transition to telehealth did not unfold in the same manner across communities. To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Advocacy Curricula in U.S. Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: Recent national events, including the COVID-19 pandemic and protests of racial inequities, have drawn attention to the role of physicians in advocating for improvements in the social, economic, and political factors that affect health. Characterizing the current state of advocacy training in U.S. medical schools may help set expectations for physician advocacy and predict future curricular needs. METHOD: Using the member school directory provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the authors compiled a list of 154 MD-granting medical schools in the United States in 2019-2020. They used multiple search strategies to identify online course catalogues and advocacy-related curricula using variations of the terms "advocacy," "policy," "equity," and "social determinants of health." They used an iterative process to generate a preliminary coding schema and to code all course descriptions, conducting content analysis to describe the structure of courses and topics covered. RESULTS: Of 134 medical schools with any online course catalogue available, 103 (76.9%) offered at least 1 advocacy course. Required courses were typically survey courses focused on general content in health policy, population health, or public health/epidemiology, whereas elective courses were more likely to focus specifically on advocacy skills building and to feature field experiences. Of 352 advocacy-specific courses, 93 (26.4%) concentrated on a specific population (e.g., children or persons with low socioeconomic status). Few courses (n = 8) focused on racial/ethnic minorities and racial inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that while most U.S. medical schools offer at least 1 advocacy course, the majority are elective rather than required, and the structure and content of advocacy-related courses vary substantially. Given the urgency to address social, economic, and political factors affecting health and health equity, this study provides an important and timely overview of the prevalence and content of advocacy curricula at U.S. medical schools.

Colorectal Cancer: In the Pursuit of Health Equity.

Colorectal cancer mortality has decreased considerably following the adoption of national screening programs, yet, within at-risk subgroups, there continue to be measurable differences in clinical outcomes from variations in screening, receipt of chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, access to clinical trials, research participation, and survivorship. These disparities are well-described and some have worsened over time. Disparities identified have included race and ethnicity, age (specifically young adults), socioeconomic status, insurance access, geography, and environmental exposures. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, colorectal cancer care has necessarily shifted dramatically, with broad, immediate uptake of telemedicine, transition to oral medications when feasible, and considerations for sequence of treatment. However, it has additionally marginalized patients with colorectal cancer with historically disparate cancer-specific outcomes; among them, uninsured, low-income, immigrant, and ethnic-minority patients-all of whom are more likely to become infected, be hospitalized, and die of either COVID-19 or colorectal cancer. Herein, we outline measurable disparities, review implemented solutions, and define strategies toward ensuring that all have a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible.