Health disparities monitoring in the U.S. was an outgrowth of, and then became an integral part of, population health monitoring
Health disparities monitoring in the U.S. was preceded by initiatives to monitor population health in general that, as a by-product, provided piecemeal evidence of differences in health status and outcomes between racial/ethnic population subgroups [
39,
40]. Deliberate, systematic health disparities documentation and monitoring are broadly recognized as being initiated by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Heckler Report in 1985, which was commissioned in response to the evidence of disparities that had been found through general population surveillance [
40].
The Heckler report was instrumental in putting the reduction of health disparities on the national agenda, as an integral component of population health. This was operationalized by explicitly incorporating the reduction of health disparities as one of the goals for improving population health in national programs, such as the Healthy People programs. As Table
1 indicates, the overarching Healthy People goals published from 1990 onward (for the target years 2000, 2010, 2020) explicitly included reducing/eliminating health disparities [
41‐
43]. The scope of this aim was expanded further in the program for the 2020 target year, to include achieving health equity and creating social and physical environments that promote good health [
43].
Table 1
Health disparities in the Healthy People programs for population health surveillance
Overarching Goals* | 1) improve infant health and reduce infant mortality 2) improve child health and development and reduce child mortality 3) improve adolescent/young adult health and development and reduce mortality 4) improve adult health and reduce mortality 5) improve older adults’ health and reduce mortality | 1) increase the span of healthy life
2) reduce disparities
3) achieve access to preventive services | 1) increase quality and years of healthy life
2) eliminate health disparities
| 1) attain high-quality, longer lives free of preventable disease, disability, injury, and premature death
2) achieve health equity, eliminate disparities, and improve the health of all groups
3) create social and physical environments that promote good health for all 4) promote quality of life, healthy development, and healthy behaviors across all life stages |
Inequality parameters | [Not defined. Where data allowed: White Black American Indian Hispanic Non-White] | American Indian/Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Women Adolescents/young adults Older adults People with disabilities People with low SES | Race and Ethnicity American Indian/Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Black (non-Hispanic) White (non-Hispanic) 2 or more races Sex Educational level Income Geographic location Disability status Sexual orientation (data unavailable for all 2010 outcomes) | Race and Ethnicity American Indian/Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Black (non-Hispanic) White (non-Hispanic) 2 or more races Gender Educational level Income Geographic location (rural/urban) Disability status Sexual identity/orientation |
Number of Priority Topic Areas | 15 | 22 | 28 | 42 |
Number of Specific Outcomes | 226 | 319 | 969 | 1200 (approximately) |
The integration of health disparities monitoring into population health surveillance programs such as Healthy People provided it with both a mandate and a formal framework, and made it a cohesive component of population health [
41‐
48]. It also became an integral component of the work of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which carries out a large portion of the national health surveillance activities, and began producing dedicated health disparities reports in 2011 [
49]. Furthermore, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was established with the mandate of monitoring disparities in health care service provision [
50,
51]. Health disparities monitoring in the U.S. evolved as these national population health surveillance programs evolved, and its integration into these systems shaped both the selection of the health outcomes/indicators and the inequality parameters that were monitored.
Health outcomes/indicators
In the Healthy People programs, all metrics that were identified as important to population health over the past 30 years were also targeted for tracking of health disparities. These outcomes fall into a number of broad categories, including: life expectancy/mortality, morbidity, risk factors, health care services access/quality, and social/environmental determinants of health.
Table
2 lists the priority areas (each of which includes many specific outcomes/objectives) that were tracked in each generation of the Healthy People program, and provides an overview of how this evolved over time.
Table 2
Priority Areas of the Healthy People programs 1990-2020
|
[Clinical preventive services]
| Access to quality health services | Access to quality health services |
| | | Adolescent health |
| | Arthritis, osteoporosis & chronic back conditions | Arthritis, osteoporosis & chronic back conditions |
| | | Blood disorders & blood safety |
| Cancer | Cancer | Cancer |
| | Chronic kidney disease | Chronic kidney disease |
| | | Dementias |
| Diabetes & chronic disabling conditions | Diabetes | Diabetes |
|
[with Diabetes]
| Disability & secondary conditions | Disability & health |
| | | Early & middle childhood |
| Education & community-based programs | Educational & community-based programs | Educational & community-based programs |
Environmental health [Toxic agent control] | Environmental health | Environmental health | Environmental health |
Family planning | Family planning | Family planning | Family planning |
| Food & drug safety | Food safety | Food safety |
| | | Genomics |
| | | Global health |
| | Health communication | Health communication & health information technology |
| | | Health-related QoL & well-being |
| | | Healthcare-associated infections |
| |
[with Vision]
| Hearing & other sensory or communication disorders |
High blood pressure control | Heart disease & stroke | Heart disease & stroke | Heart disease & stroke |
| HIV infection | HIV | HIV |
Immunizations Infectious agent control | Immunizations & infectious diseases | Immunizations & infectious diseases | Immunizations & infectious diseases |
Injury control [accidental] | Injuries [unintentional] Violent and abusive behavior | Injury & violence prevention | Injury & violence prevention |
| | | Lesbian, gay bisexual & transgender health |
Maternal [Pregnancy] & infant care | Maternal & infant health | Maternal, infant & child health | Maternal, infant & child health |
| | Medical product safety | Medical product safety |
| Mental health & mental disorders | Mental health & mental disorders | Mental health & mental disorders |
Nutrition | Nutrition | Nutrition & overweight | Nutrition & weight status |
Occupational safety & health | Occupational safety and health | Occupational safety & health | Occupational safety & health |
| | | Older adults |
Fluoridation of water supplies | Oral Health | Oral health | Oral health |
Physical activity [Exercise & fitness] | Physical activity/fitness | Physical activity/fitness | Physical activity |
| | | Preparedness |
| [Clinical preventive services]
[Surveillance & data systems]
| Public health infrastructure | Public health infrastructure |
| | Respiratory diseases | Respiratory diseases |
Sexually transmissible diseases | Sexually transmitted diseases | Sexually transmitted diseases | Sexually transmitted diseases |
| | | Sleep health |
| | | Social determinants |
Stress management | | | |
Substance use [Alcohol & drugs] | Substance abuse | Substance abuse | Substance abuse |
Tobacco [smoking cessation] | Tobacco use | Tobacco use | Tobacco use |
The Healthy People 1990 program identified 15 priority areas (Table
1) and set 226 measurable health objectives to be used to track population health [
44]. Since reducing health disparities was not an a priori aim of this program, only a small number of these objectives could be used to explore differences between population groups, with a very limited subset of inequality parameters [
45].
The Healthy People 2000 initiative, which set reducing health disparities as an a priori aim, identified 22 priority areas to be tracked (Table
1) and 319 national objectives to be achieved. All priority areas and national objectives were evaluated by the health disparities parameters, wherever data permitted. Systematic documentation and reporting of gaps in the data (by the inequality parameter subcategories) also began in this period [
44].
The commitment to solving the problem of health disparities continued to grow, and both Healthy People 2010 and 2020 set
eliminating health disparities as a main goal [
46,
47]. Healthy People 2010 identified 28 priority areas (Table
1), and set over 900 specific health promotion and disease prevention objectives to track progress [
44]. Additional priority areas introduced in the 2010 program included outcomes related to access to and quality of care, a broader range of specific chronic conditions, and technological advances (e.g., health communication, medical devices; Table
2) [
46].
Healthy People 2020 identified 42 priority areas, adding areas focused on life stages, health-related quality of life, genomics, global health, and social determinants [
46,
47].
While the Healthy People programs have evolved to track a rather overwhelming number of indicators (~ 1200), they also identified a much smaller subset of “Leading Health Indicators” (LHI) that reflect the major public health concerns in the U.S. These LHI were selected on the basis of: 1) their ability to motivate action, 2) the availability of data to measure their progress, and 3) their relevance as broad public health issues [
46]. Additional file
2: Table S2 lists the 12 LHIs of the Healthy People 2020 program with the target for each indicator. The table presents information extracted from the data page of each LHI on the Healthy People 2020 website [
48], including the target to be reached by 2020, and baseline and most recent data both for the population as a whole and for selected inequality parameters.
The CDC, which hosts the National Health Center for Health Statistics, is responsible for collecting much of the nationally representative data that it and other agencies/initiatives use to monitor public health and health disparities. From the plethora of data collected under its auspices, the CDC set the following criteria for selecting health indicators/topics to include in their health disparities reports:
1.
The data must be of high quality and appropriate for developing national estimates.
2.
In addition, the topic had to meet one or more of the following criteria:
a.
leading cause of premature death, higher disease burden, or lower life expectancy at birth for certain segments of the U.S. population as defined by sex, race/ethnicity, income or education, geography, sexual orientation, and disability status;
b.
known determinant of health (e.g., social, demographic, and environmental) where disparities have been identified; and/or
c.
health outcome for which effective and feasible interventions exist where disparities have been identified [
49].
The AHRQ is a DHSS agency that generates measures and data on the quality of healthcare in the U.S. As a part of national efforts to reduce health disparities, in 1999 the AHRQ began producing an annual National Healthcare Disparities report [
50]. Its reports focus on: a) measures of access to and quality of care; and b) the National Quality Strategy (NQS) priorities, which include: patient safety, person-centered care, care coordination, effective treatment, healthy living, and care affordability [
51].
Inequality parameters
There was initially very little discussion in the U.S. literature about the ‘selection’ of inequality parameters to track in health disparities monitoring. It rather seems that the inequality parameters were self-evident, or self-selected, based upon available evidence of differences in health outcomes for, and/or evidence of discrimination against, specific population groups [
52].
However, the various health disparities monitoring programs discovered that the lack of consistent, widely used standards for collecting and reporting health data by racial, ethnic and other inequality parameters complicated the documentation of health disparities [
2,
53,
54]. As a consequence, in 2011 the DHHS set minimum data standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, and disability status to be implemented in all federally funded population health surveys where person-level data were collected. The race/ethnic-origin data standards included a more granular list of 18 categories, breaking down the Asian and Hispanic groups to geographic-origin distinct subcategories whenever feasible. In addition, more detailed information was collected on primary language and language proficiency, and on physical disabilities and limitations [
55]. It is noteworthy, however, that the 2011 Standards did not include any SES parameters in the standards, nor was this even discussed in the documentation explaining the standards [
55].
Additional file
3: Table S3 presents a summary of the 3 major health disparities monitoring and reporting initiatives described above (Healthy People, CDC, AHRQ). The inequality parameters surveilled for health disparities are quite similar for the CDC and the Healthy People 2020 initiatives and reflect the 2011 DHHS standards [
55]. For some of the population domains (e.g., sexual orientation, primary language) data are still largely unavailable (indicated in gray rather than black font in the table) [
47,
49].
The CDC and Healthy People 2020 also track many of the same health outcomes/indicators. However, Healthy People 2020 tracks utilization of healthcare services, specific disease trajectories, psycho-social indicators, and some SES, environmental and lifestyle indicators in more detail than the CDC does [
56]. While the role of the CDC is primarily monitoring and reporting, the Healthy People initiative relates the data to targets (shown in the Healthy People 2020 column of Table
2 in parentheses, where targets have been set), and reports on population progress toward meeting the targets.
The AHRQ National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports include more than 250 measures of quality and disparities covering a broad array of health care services and settings [
57‐
59]. In more recent years, detailed disparity information is also available in supplementary (chart book) reports for each of the NQS priorities [
60‐
63].
High-level political commitment and legislation played an important role
High-level political support and federal/national legislation have played an important role in establishing systems for health disparities monitoring in the U.S. The Heckler Report was commissioned by the DHHS Secretary, and given this top-level political commitment to the problem of health disparities, the DHHS established an Office of Minority Health in 1986. This office was subsequently authorized and reauthorized in legislation passed in 1990, 1998, and 2010 [
64]. Additional congressional legislation in 1999 required the AHRQ to produce annual National Health Care Disparities Reports [
65]. Congress also passed the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. This act commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM, an independent, non-governmental organization of eminent professionals that guides national health policy) to conduct a comprehensive study of the DHHS health disparities data collection systems. It also required the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD) [
52]. Within its charge of developing and implementing NIH-wide strategic plan for health disparities research, the NCMHD was given responsibility for supporting research that identified the most critical health disparities factors/outcomes to monitor, and the best ways to measure them.
During another period of commitment to eliminating health disparities in the U.S. at the very highest political level, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed. It mandated the establishment of Minority Health offices in 6 other DHHS agencies, including AHRQ and CDC [
66]. In addition, it elevated the status of the NCMHD to an NIH institute (National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities [NIMHD]) with responsibility for further refining and developing definitional and methodological issues in health disparities research, and coordinating cross-institute and interdepartmental health disparities research. The NIMHD launched a Resource-Related Health and Health Disparities Research Initiative, and established the Data Infrastructure and Information Dissemination on Health Disparities Research Initiative. It also established a National Health Disparities Research Coordinating Center (NHDRCC) to collect, integrate and track data on health disparities research. In addition, the NHDRCC was charged with analyzing and interpreting data from a variety of research projects to facilitate reporting on progress and gaps in health disparities research, and approaches to understanding health disparities. It provides a central source of links to racial and ethnic health and health care disparities reports [
67], several of which provide excellent models for health disparities data surveillance and reporting [
60‐
63,
68].
Clearly, health disparities monitoring programs can be advanced by governing powers with a political philosophy or ideology that promotes equality, fairness and the rights of minority populations; and, in equal measure, can be undermined by governing powers that are indifferent or even hostile to these principles. This is illustrated by recent events in the U.S. While the ACA reforms explicitly provided for health disparities reporting and research to track health disparities, the recently proposed ACA replacement acts of the current administration did not mention health disparities, nor have any provisions calling for monitoring them [
69,
70].
Since initial governmental commitments were made to tracking and reducing health disparities in the 1980s, there have been a number of American administrations with varied visions for public health. It seems, however, that the systematic monitoring of health disparities has remained on track, perhaps because it has been incorporated into 10-year programs for total population health surveillance, or mandated by legislation that is not easily repealed, despite changes in the priorities of successive administrations. Nevertheless, the current political period is likely to shed light on how robust the U.S. program for monitoring and eliminating health disparities is in the absence of administration-level support, and on what other sources of support may emerge.
The monitoring of health outcomes/indicators and inequality parameters provided a feedback loop that informed future changes in/expansion of the outcomes/indicators and parameters monitored
This section examines in more depth how the health disparities monitoring process led to an evolution in the fundamental understanding of the causes of health disparities, which in turn let to changes in the outcomes and inequality parameters that were monitored.
This is particularly evident in the Healthy People program. As 2010 approached, evaluations of progress toward meeting the health outcome targets led to a shift in the understanding of health disparities, as well as in the outcomes selected for monitoring for the coming decade. The IOM issued a report which showed that progress toward targets occurred for about half of the leading health indicators; however, there was no significant change in disparities for about 70% of the leading health indicator objectives [
71]. The IOM report raised issues that had not thus far been monitored, such as the negative effects of racism, residential segregation, and low SES [
71]. It was joined by other researchers in recognizing that “macro-level factors and systemic forces are what fundamentally drive population level inequities. Research and interventions, therefore, should target these factors operating at the macro levels of the socioecologic framework.” [
72, p. 1395].
The work of additional non-governmental organizations (e.g., Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, the California Endowment, Kaiser Family Foundation, MacArthur Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health) on health disparities raised similar concerns [
71]. One of their critiques was that the early governmental initiatives to address health disparities tended to focus primarily on individual-level risk factors and medical care interventions. They acknowledged that reducing disparities in medical care was essential, but also compiled data showing that the effective prevention/management of many health problems did not lie principally in hospitals and doctors’ offices, but rather in the broader environment (e.g., homes, schools, workplaces, playgrounds and parks, grocery stores, sidewalks and streets, air, water) [
73]. As a result, they aimed to expand the view of what it means to be healthy from looking only at where health ends (e.g., disease and healthcare system outcomes), to looking also at where health begins (e.g., social, economic and physical living conditions) [
74], and developing policies and programs that would break down barriers to good health, particularly for those who faced the greatest obstacles [
75].
In light of these initiatives, Healthy People 2020 adopted a framework that viewed individual-level and population-level factors as complementary elements of an integrated, comprehensive strategy for disease prevention and health promotion [
76]. Its principal, and indeed, primary focus was centered on the social determinants of health as the “root causes of health disparities” [
43, p. 29]; while health care was considered “a secondary focus” [
43, p. 20].
The Healthy People 2020 website introduced “Social Determinants” as a new priority area with outcomes related to the social aspects of these upstream determinants (e.g., access to educational, economic, job, transportation and affordable housing opportunities; quality of education/job training; food security; public safety/exposure to crime, violence and social disorder; concentrated poverty; residential segregation; incarceration; political participation); as well as the physical aspects (e.g., natural environment/green spaces; built environment; housing and community design; exposure to toxic substances) [
77,
78]. The new life stage priority areas (e.g., Early and Middle Childhood, Adolescent Health, Older Adults) tracked additional social determinants; including, for example, intermediate educational access and achievement, and access to social services in each life stage as outcomes. The CDC adopted a similar emphasis on social, economic, and environmental factors as some of the strongest predictors of health in its 2013 report on health disparities, and defined social/environmental determinants as outcomes in health disparities monitoring [
49]. These ‘social determinant-outcomes’ were monitored by the inequality parameters, because just as with the more traditional health and risk factor outcomes, differences in the social determinant-outcomes across sex, race/ethnicity, region and sexual orientation categories represented unnecessary and unjust differences in health opportunities/potential, which would subsequently translate into unnecessary and unjust differences in health.
As some of these social determinants of health (e.g., the educational and income/poverty variables) were traditionally used as inequality parameters, and continue to be used as such, their classification as outcomes represents a paradigm change of substantial significance. The use of educational achievement as an inequality parameter, for example, implies the need to eliminate health differences across differing levels of educational achievement, while differences in educational achievement are taken as a given. In contrast, the use of educational achievement as a social determinant-outcome implies that the differences in educational achievement must be monitored and eliminated in order to eliminate health disparities. This also implies that the interventions needed to address health disparities cannot be confined to the healthcare system, but must target social, economic and physical conditions critical to health. The latter approach is consistent with the understanding of and emphasis on the social determinants of health articulated in the Healthy People 2020 and recent CDC health disparities programs. However, the rationale for using the same metric (e.g., educational achievement) both as an inequality parameter and as an outcome was not addressed in the program documentation [
49,
76,
77]. This introduces a source of confusion; and the need for a differentiated, more precise nomenclature. Explicitly addressing this dilemma would lead to better refining and directing health disparities program policy and elimination efforts. For example, educational achievement should perhaps not be used as an inequality parameter, with its inference that differences within this parameter are unmodifiable/not of concern. It should rather only be used as a social determinants-outcome, given that reducing disparities in educational achievement is a precondition to reducing health disparities.
The inequality parameters used to monitor health disparities have also evolved over time, as can be seen across the generations of the Healthy People program (Table
1), due at least in part to feedback from expanded and more systematic health disparities monitoring and better data availability [
41‐
46,
79]. In Healthy People 2000, the list of “special populations” to be tracked for disparities included: the major racial/ethnic minority groups, women, adolescents/young adults/older adults, and low SES categories (Table
1) [
41]. In the Healthy People 2010 program the category of ‘people with low SES’ was replaced with the categories of educational level and income. In addition, the categories of geographical location (rural/urban) and sexual orientation were added [
44].
Healthy People 2020 began tracking additional inequality parameters as a natural outgrowth of its focus on the social determinants of health. More extensive use was made of data available from a broad range of governmental departments to introduce parameters of inequality that were further upstream than the traditional inequality parameters.
For example, for the Healthy People 2020 outcome of the percentage of 4th graders who are at or above grade level for reading skills, in addition to the standard inequality parameters, data were presented by educational attainment of the parents, school type (public/charter/private), school lunch program eligibility, native English speaker status, and type of community where school is located [
80]. The use of these additional inequality parameters/sub-parameters provides vital information about how intergenerational and community disparities impact intermediate educational attainment, on the path to adult educational attainment; which in turn, determines health and mortality outcomes and disparities throughout the life course.
A number of social scientists and epidemiologists have critiqued that fact that the collection of and reporting on inequality parameters in the U.S. (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, gender) presents them as independent and individualized traits; although, in reality, the core inequality parameters often cluster together [
52,
81‐
83]. As such, health disparities data need to be collected and presented in a format that allows for using analytical techniques that explore the intersectionality of the inequality parameters (e.g., joint health consequences of being a low-SES, racial/ethnic minority female) and its effects on health trajectories over the life course/intergenerationally (e.g., multiple-hierarchy stratification) [
83]. Such an approach can begin to elucidate the social relations of power that determine the clustering of disadvantage, and that need to be addressed in order to eliminate health disparities [
82].
Data monitoring has served as a tool to identify data gaps and provided an impetus for developing plans to close the gaps
As the various health disparities monitoring initiatives determined inequality parameters and health outcomes of interest and began tracking them, they discovered that data were unavailable for many inequality parameters. Nevertheless, the gaps in data were themselves systematically documented and used to improve the health disparities monitoring system. In the final Healthy People 2000 report, these data issues were explicitly addressed and specific objectives were set, calling for: 1) identifying gaps in the data; and 2) establishing mechanisms to meet data needs for more granular racial/ethnic subgroups (e.g., American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic/Latino), and low SES categories [
44].
The Healthy People 2010 documents also very clearly addressed remaining gaps in the data, and called for multiple actors at different levels of the system and society to work to fill those gaps. They noted, for example, that data by sexual orientation were unavailable for all Healthy People 2010 outcomes.
In addition, in the 2010 final report, the documentation and reporting of gaps in data by health disparities parameters by each specific objective/outcome became much more systematic and explicit [
46]. Health Disparities Tables were created for the Priority Topic Areas and the Leading Health Indicators, which summarized the data availability and status of each specific objective/outcome by the inequality parameters. Additional file
4: Table S4 displays the Health Disparities Table for Leading Health Indicators from the final report of Healthy People 2010 [
46], and provides a salient example of how a very large volume of disparities data can be effectively summarized and presented, while visually highlighting data gaps. According to a color-coded legend, the best group rate within each inequality parameter is identified. In addition, the extent of the disparity from the best rate among the other groups within the inequality parameter is indicated, as well as whether the magnitude of the disparity is increasing or decreasing. If data is unavailable by any inequality parameter (or for any sub-group within an inequality parameter), this is also explicitly indicated in the table (see legend at end of Additional file
4: Table S4). For example, a review of the objective “19-2.Obesity in adults” by the Race/Ethnicity parameter in Additional file
4: Table S4 shows that non-Hispanic Whites had the best (lowest) rate; Blacks and Hispanics differed from the best rate by 10-49%; the disparity between Hispanics and the best group rate decreased since 2000; and there were no data for four other racial/ethnic groups.
Summary reports of the Healthy People 2010 program indicated that 40% of the objectives could not be assessed, particularly as related to health disparities [
43]. Setting developmental objectives, despite the lack of baseline or tracking data, was identified as an important first step to stimulating the creation of data collection systems [
43].
Data availability continues to be monitored and reported in the web presentation of the data for Healthy People 2020. For example, the adult obesity outcome data table includes sexual orientation and gender identity, with the notation that data is unavailable ([
84], see the “View data by group” tab). The Healthy People 2020 also program put a priority on developing data collection objectives for any outcomes/objectives critical to achieving health equity, for which data were lacking [
76].
Health disparities monitoring in the U.S. has become a multi-agency, cross-departmental effort
Health disparities monitoring has grown into a multi-agency endeavor, within and beyond the DHSS. The DHSS Minority Health agencies established by the ACA formed a DHSS Health Disparities Council which developed and oversees broad health disparities plans/activities that affect the way nationwide health data is collected. Its 2011 plan called for implementing a multifaceted health disparities data collection strategy across the DHHS, which aimed to:
-
Establish data standards and ensure federally conducted or supported health care or public health programs, activities, or surveys collect and report data in five specific demographic categories: race, ethnicity, gender, primary language, and disability status as authorized in the Affordable Care Act;
-
Oversample minority populations in DHHS surveys;
-
Develop other methods for capturing low-density populations (e.g., Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders), when oversampling is not fiscally feasible;
-
Use analytical strategies and techniques, such as pooling data across several years, to develop estimates for racial and ethnic minority populations;
-
Publish estimates of health outcomes for racial and ethnic minority populations and subpopulations on a regular, pre-determined schedule;
-
Make aggregately-collected healthcare service quality measurement data that call attention to racial and ethnic disparities publicly available;
-
Improve public access to DHHS minority data and promotion of external analyses; and
-
Develop and implement a plan for targeted special population studies, internally or through research grant funding announcements and contracts. This initiative will also address gaps in subpopulations traditionally missed by standard DHHS data collection activities [
54].
Expanding efforts both within and beyond the DHHS, recent U.S. government initiatives were directed at creating a broad, comprehensive, and coordinated national approach. The DHHS approach of promoting “health in all policies” entailed working cross-governmentally and engaging agencies such as the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, Transportation, etc. to more directly and effectively address the social determinants of health [
76].
The Affordable Care Act created the inter-departmental (e.g., inter-ministry) National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council (NPC). The elimination of health disparities was one of 4 strategic directions in its National Strategy, and included supporting research to identify effective strategies to eliminate health disparities, and standardizing and collecting data to better identify and address disparities [
85]. The vast breadth of the federal/national governmental departments, agencies and offices included in the NPC (see Box 1) provides an important model of the expansion required in order to monitor disparities across the full range of social and environmental determinants of health. The NPC strategy also proposed partnerships with state, tribal, local and territorial governments; businesses and employers; healthcare systems, insurers and clinicians; early learning centers, schools, colleges, and universities; community, non-profit, and faith-based organizations; and individuals and families [
85].
Box 1 Members of National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council (NPC)
• Bureau of Indian Affairs |
• Corporation for National and Community Service |
• Department of Homeland Security |
• Department of Defense |
• Department of Justice |
• Department of Labor |
• Department of Transportation |
• Domestic Policy Council |
• Department of Education |
• Environmental Protection Agency |
• Federal Trade Commission |
• Department of Health and Human Services |
• Department of Housing and Urban Development |
• Office of Management and Budget |
• Office of National Drug Control Policy |
• Department of Veterans Affairs |
The NPC Strategy actions specifically related to disparities monitoring included: