The United States Leads Other Nations In Differences By Income In Perceptions Of Health And Health Care
Abstract
We examined income gaps in the period 2011-13 in self-assessments of personal health and health care across thirty-two middle- and high-income countries. While high-income respondents were generally more positive about their health and health care in most countries, the gap between them and low-income respondents was much bigger in some than in others. The United States has among the largest income-related differences in each of the measures we studied, which assessed both respondents' past experiences and their confidence about accessing needed health care in the future. Relatively low levels of moral discomfort over income-based health care disparities despite broad awareness of unmet need indicate more public tolerance for health care inequalities in the United States than elsewhere. Nonetheless, over half of Americans felt that income-based health care inequalities are unfair, and these respondents were significantly more likely than their compatriots to support major health system reform-differences that reflect the country's political divisions. Given the many provisions in the Affordable Care Act that seek to reduce disparities, any replacement would also require attention to disparities or risk taking a step backward in an area where the United States is in sore need of improvement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The U.S. leads other middle- and high-income countries in both real and perceived healthcare disparities.
“This is a major concern globally and especially in the U.S., which already leads other middle-and high-income countries in both real and perceived healthcare disparities69,70.”
From Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities (2019) · cites this paper as [69]
Cites
U.S. Disparities in Health: Descriptions, Causes, and Mechanisms
Adler, N. E., & Rehkopf, D. H. (2008) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090852 · Cited by 1,212 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities
Martin, A. R., Kanai, M., Kamatani, Y., Okada, Y., Neale, B. M., & Daly, M. J. (2019) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-019-0379-x · Cited by 2,831 · see citing works
Current clinical use of polygenic scores will risk exacerbating health disparities
Martin, A. R., Kanai, M., Kamatani, Y., Okada, Y., Neale, B. M., & Daly, M. J. (2018) · doi:10.1101/441261 · Cited by 2,813 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hero, J. O., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Blendon, R. J.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1032-1040
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2621879404
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 11.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Keywords
- self-rated health, health care access, health care inequality, moral discomfort, health care reform, Affordable Care Act, cross-national comparison, United States
- MeSH terms
- Cross-Cultural Comparison, Health Policy, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Income, Quality of Health Care, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Global Health, Healthcare Disparities, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review