Inequality in Access to, and Utilization of, Health Care - The Case of African American and Non-Hispanic White Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from the Household Component of the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the study compares (1) the accessibility, and (2) the predictors of health care services utilization among African American and non-Hispanic White males, 18 to 65 years old in the United States. Using ANOVA procedure in comparing the means for use of physicians, hospitals, doctors, and difficulty obtaining care, seven hypotheses were tested in the study. First, it was hypothesized that African American men of working age will have less access to health care services (physicians, hospitals, and dentists), and be more likely to report having experienced delay or difficulty obtaining care, compared to non-Hispanic white males of working age. Second, it was hypothesized that, controlling for health status, African American men of working age will have less access to health care services (physicians, hospitals, and dentists), and will also be more likely to experience delay or difficulty obtaining care, than non-Hispanic white males. This was followed by the third hypothesis which compared utilization of physicians, hospitals, dentists, and difficulty obtaining care among African American and non-Hispanic white males, controlling for health status and insurance coverage (any insurance, private insurance, any public insurance, and Medicaid). Hypotheses four through six compared the utilization of physicians, hospitals, and dentists, as well as difficulty obtaining care among African American and non-Hispanic white males, controlling for the following variables sequentially: health status and poverty status; health status and having a usual source of care; and health status and employment status, in that order. Finally, it was hypothesized that, controlling for health status, any insurance, poverty status, and employment status, African American men of working age will have less access to physicians, hospitals, and dentists, and experience more difficulty and delay obtaining care, compared to non-Hispanic white males of working age. Results from the study indicated that Hypothesis 1 was supported for use of physicians and dentists. Hypotheses 2, 3a and 3c were supported for use of physicians, hospitals, and dentists. Hypotheses 3b, 3d, and 4 received support for use of physicians, hospitals, dentists, and difficulty obtaining care. Additionally, both Hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported for use of physicians, hospitals, and dentists, with the last hypothesis being confirmed for use of physicians, hospitals, dentists, and difficulty obtaining care. The study calls for a closure of the gap in access to health care between African American and non-Hispanic white adult males in the US. A reform-oriented government-sponsored single-payer plan modeled after the Canadian health care system is recommended for the United States. A national health insurance plan is most likely to ensure equity of access, compared to others, in the sense that it is founded on the premise that everyone will be covered in a similar fashion. Considering the role of Community Health Centers in serving Medicaid and Medicare recipients, low-income uninsured and insured, the underinsured, as well as high-risk populations and the elderly, in the interim, they should be extended to every community in the United States.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".