Study details gap in death rate by race; health care disparities blamed
Researchers hope findings will influence physician and policy-maker attitudes.
by: Andis Robeznieks from: American Medical News, December 20, 2004
As the American Medical Association, National Medical Assn. and more
than 30 other organizations prepare for a Jan. 31, 2005, launch of a
commission to attack the problem of health care disparities among
racial and ethnic minorities, a new study underscores the dire need for
such an effort.
According to the report, published in the December issue of the
American Journal of Public Health, resolving racial disparities in
health care could save fives times as many lives as the number saved by
technological advances made in improving drugs, devices and medical
procedures. Comparing mortality data of whites and African-Americans
between 1991 and 2000, the researchers -- including a former U.S.
surgeon general -- said they hope to highlight the impact of these
disparities, as well as the effect of health care research priorities,
which they say favor expensive "incremental improvements" in treatments
over reducing the disparities in which these treatments are applied.
AMA President John C. Nelson, MD, MPH, said his first reaction after reading the study was "Wow."
"The magnitude is amazing," said Dr. Nelson, a Salt Lake City-based
obstetrician-gynecologist who has pledged to make resolving health care
disparities a priority of his presidency. "This adds tremendous fuel to
our fire and will help us do our job to make our colleagues aware that
this is a real problem."
Dr. Nelson said reducing disparities encompasses the AMA traditions
of science, caring and ethics. "If we know something is a problem, we
have to do something about it," he said. "Do we have a systematic bias
that allows it to occur? If so, we have to find out what it is and
change it."
Researchers hope to raise awareness
The researchers calculated that technological medical advances
averted 176,633 deaths between 1991 and 2000, while eliminating racial
health care disparities could have averted 886,202 deaths.
"It's hoped that this article will draw attention to the importance
of the need to continue investment in [disparity-reduction] programs
and prevention research," said report co-author David Satcher, MD, PhD,
director of the National Center for Primary Care at the Morehouse
School of Medicine in Atlanta and U.S. surgeon general from 1998 to
2002.
Resolving racial disparities in health care could save 5 times as many lives as those saved by advances in technology.
"There are a lot of issues here, but the idea is to get people
sensitized and aware of the impact of health care disparities," he
said.
For example, Dr. Satcher said the issue of Medicare reimbursement
obstacles and their impact on disparities is an issue health care
policy-makers need to take note of.
"A problem now is that people on the front lines are getting
punished for taking care of the poor because they have problems getting
reimbursement," Dr. Satcher said, adding that this study helps define
the impact of this policy-related problem.
To determine the number of African-American deaths attributable to
higher mortality rates, Dr. Satcher and colleagues used an "indirect
standardization" of mortality rates with African-Americans used as a
reference population. For each year, the Caucasian age-specific
mortality rate, by gender, was multiplied by the population of
African-Americans in the corresponding age groups, the report stated.
Then researchers divided the total calculated deaths by the population
of African-Americans to arrive at a gender-specific mortality rate.
This "hypothetical crude mortality rate" was subtracted from the actual
African-American crude mortality rate and multiplied by the total
population of African-Americans to estimate avertable deaths, the
report stated. Details can be found online
(www.vcu.edu/fp/research/AJPHaddendum.pdf).
Declines in age-adjusted mortality rates were used to determine the
benefit of medical advances. Although lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD,
MPH, described this as a "back-of-the-envelope calculation," he was
confident that any refinements in the data would not significantly
alter the direction of their findings.
"Policy-makers shouldn't wait around for more refined
calculations," said Dr. Woolf, executive vice president for policy
development of Partners for Prevention, a nonprofit health policy
group, and a professor and director of research at the Dept. of Family
Practice at Virginia Commonwealth University. "The actual ratio might
turn out to be 3-to-1, 4-to-1 or 6-to-1, but the bottom line is that
the public health benefits of removing disparities are more substantial
than the incremental improvements we make in treatments."
Citing his belief in the rigorous peer review process at the
American Journal of Public Health, Dr. Nelson said he was confident in
the researchers' statistical analysis.
Commission's mission defined
To do its part, the NMA/AMA-led Commission to End Health Care
Disparities will work to promote better research, clinical services,
medical work-force diversity and awareness of disparity issues, said
Arthur B. Elster, MD, the AMA's director of medicine and public health.
"Many physicians still view health care disparities as a
socioeconomic issue," Dr. Elster said. "But even if you account for
socioeconomic factors, the disparities persist."
Dr. Satcher noted the important part primary care physicians play in efforts to reduce disparities.
"Primary care physicians have a major role to play because we're on
the front lines and we have to make sure that patients -- regardless of
race and ethnicity -- get quality care," Dr. Satcher said.
It's estimated that the pharmaceutical industry spends an average
of $800 million on developing new drugs, Dr. Woolf noted, and the
National Institutes of Health has an annual budget of almost $28
billion to carry out its mission "to acquire new knowledge to help
prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability." In
comparison, the agency which investigates health care disparities --
the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality -- gets about $319
million.
"What our research is suggesting is that this is not going to
produce the best health outcomes and that we would save many more lives
by adjusting our priorities," he said.