ABSTRACT
The Indian Health Service (IHS) faces severe workforce shortages due to underfunding and underdevelopment of clinical training programs. Unlike other direct federal health care systems that have implemented clinical training paradigms as central parts of their success, the IHS has no formalized process for developing such programs internally or in partnership with academic institutions. While the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) authorizes mechanisms by which the IHS can support overall workforce development, a critical portion of the act (U.S. Code 1616p) intended for developing clinical training programs within the agency remains unfunded. Here, we review the funding challenges of the IHCIA, as well as its authorized and funded workforce development programs that have only partially addressed workforce shortages. We propose that through additional funding to 1616p, the IHS could implement clinical training programs needed to prepare a larger workforce more capable of meeting the needs of American Indian/Alaska Native communities.
Subject(s)
United States Indian Health Service , Humans , United States , United States Indian Health Service/organization & administration , Health Workforce , Indians, North American , Staff Development/organization & administration , Financing, Government , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Health Personnel/educationABSTRACT
American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are the Indigenous peoples of the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 9.7 million people self-identified as AI/AN (alone or in combination with other races), representing 2.9% of the total U.S. population. These people represent diverse groups of discrete Tribes, each with their language, culture, and geographic home. As part of the conquest and settlement of North America, some Indigenous peoples signed treaties with the U.S. government, surrendering their lands in return for various government commitments, including health care. The Indian Health Service (IHS) was born out of these agreements. The IHS is an agency in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the U.S. Public Health Service. The IHS provides a comprehensive health service delivery system for approximately 2.7 million AI/AN who belong to 574 federally recognized Tribes/nations in 37 states. The aim of this paper is to make recommendations regarding the initiation of sustainable neurology care in marginalized or underserved populations by reviewing 40 years of neurology care provision within the IHS. We will discuss (1) the IHS, (2) neurological care provided within the IHS, including midlevel provider extension of neurology care and traditional medical care, and (3) select neurological diagnoses within AI/AN populations. Marginalized populations, including those in the United States that are rural, remote, or low socioeconomic status, lack access to specialty neurology care. This includes many AI/AN. The IHS has developed novel solutions to promote specialty care, including neurology. Notably, initial IHS investments in full-time neurology providers have led to more robust neurology care, often receiving attention from university programs. This suggests that an initial investment in stable on-site full-time neurology services provides a path to potential sustainable care for marginalized populations.
Subject(s)
American Indian or Alaska Native , Neurology , United States Indian Health Service , Humans , Delivery of Health Care , Rural Population , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the preparations made by adults to age in place and identify disparities. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among U.S. adults ages 50-80 years old (n = 2277). Individual, environmental, social, and community factors influencing readiness for aging in place were examined using chi-square tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Income, disability status, and household composition, emerged as influential factors, often negatively affecting minority aging. Participants' consideration of aging in place was related to their disability status (OR 1.80 [1.32, 2.45]) and age (OR age 60-69 2.06 [1.54, 2.74], age 70-80 (OR 1.98 [1.46,2.67]), compared with age 50-59). Indigenous and Black older adults reported significantly higher levels of consideration for aging in place than White older adults (Indigenous OR 7.89 [2.35, 26.42], Black OR 1.71 [1.11, 2.64]). CONCLUSION: Aging in place is best facilitated by inclusive communities that prioritize adaptive homes and accessible community services.
